The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1860-02-15

And heavens gate my wHoLgl
Douglas and Davis In the Senate.
In the Senate, Jan'y oath, Mr.. DOUGLAS
resolution being under consideration, Mr..
DAVIS took exception to the language of
Mr.. DOUGLAS previous speech, in its appli.
cation to the President. Mr.. DAVIS, in
somewhat lengthy strain, opened the sub.
ject; the purport of what he said can be
gathered from the remarks of Mr.. DOUGLAS
in reply; he concluded his first observations
as follows:
1t is proper for me, Mr. President, to say
that it is in no feeling of partisan warfare
between the senator and president, if such
exists, that have made the explanation.
1t is in the deep interest feel for the pres
ervation Of sound principles, and the re.
striction of the federal government from
striding over the sovereignties of the states
to usurp such centralizing power under the
promptings Of momentary expediency,
which would destroy the great charter of
our liberty, and reduce the people to that
condition from which they rosc-the subject
of government not within their own con-
troll
Mr.. Douglas-I think if the Senator from
Mississippi had carefully read my speech,
he would have found no necessity for vindi-
eating the President of the United States
from any criticism that had made upon
his letter, or for any issu that had made
with the president growing out of that let
ter. Certainly, in my speech, there is no
criticism upon the president, none upon his
letter, no issue made with him; on the con-
trary, an express disclaimer of any such is
sue. quoted the paragraph from the pres
idcnts letter in reply to Gov. WISE The
governor of Virginia had notified the Pres
ident of the United States that there were
in existence, of which he had reliable evil
dcnce, conspiracics and combinations in
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and other
states, to invade the state Of Virginia for
the purpose of rescuing certain men con-
victed of high crimes; and that there were
depots of arms and places Of rendezvous
fixed in the state of Maryland for these des-
peradoes; and he communicated these facts
to the President of the United States that
he might take steps to preserve peace be-
tween the States. The president replies
quoted his language, and will quote it
again:
81 am at loss to discover any provision
in the Constitution or laws of the United
States which will authorize me to take steps
for this purpose" That is preserving the
peace between the states.
Thc president was unable to discover any
provision in the Constitution tr in the laws
Of the United States, which would authorize
him to interfere. After quoting that,
stated:
'This announcement produceda profound
impression upon the public mind, especial
ly in the slaveholding states. Itwas gener-
ally received and regarded as an authorita-
tive announcement that the Constitution OF
the United States confers no power upon
the federal government to protect the sever
al states of this Union against invasion from
the other states. shall not stop to inquire
whether the president meant to declare that
the existing laws confer no authority upon
him, o; that the constitution empowers con.
grcss to enact no laws which would author
Use the federal interposition to protect the
south from invasion"
My impression from reading the presi-
dents letter was that he was inclined to the
belief that the constitution conferred no
power upon the federal government to in.
terferc. That was my impression from his
language; but still, it might be that such
was not the presidents meaning, and that
he only wished to be understood as saving
that existing laws conferred no authority
upon him to interfere. Henos, in order to
make no issue with the president upon that
| subject, stated shall not stop to INQUIRE
| whether he meant to be understood as de.
| tho Of 30
thority, or denying that the authority was
yet conferred. My simple object was to ob.
tain suitable legislation to redress simila,
evils in the future; that if the present laws
were not sufficient believe there are none
ON the subject-congress ought to enac,
suitable laws to the extent that the consti.
tuition authorised, to prevent these inyasions
quoted it for the purpose Of showing the
necessity Of legislation by congress. My
argument was founded upon that supposed
necessity. proceeded to demonstrate tina,
the constitution conferred the power or
congress to pass laws necessary and proper
to protect the states, and called upon con
gress to exercise that power. l made nc
issue with the president. If he simply
meant to be understood as declaring thai
the existing laws do not confer the authori
ty, concur with him. If he wished to be
understood, when he declared that he was
at loss to discover any provision in tn.
constitution or laws OF the United States
that conferred any such authority, that the
constitution did not authorize congress to
pass such laws, then should differ with
him; but carefully avoided putting any
construction upon his language as to his
meaning. If it meant one thing, differed
with him; if it meant the other, agreed
with him; but as my object was to demon
stratc the necessity forlegislation, l confined
myself to an argument in favor of such leg
jslation. Now, sir, respectfully submit
that made no assault upon the president
in connection with that question; had no
such motive, as the senator seems to sup
pose, of partisan issue between the presi-
dent and myself have no more motive
for that than the senator has, or than there
is between the senator and myself think
my remarks clearly show that was asking
for practical legislation, simply for the pur-
pose of executing plain provision Of the
constitution.
But the senator intimatcs that the legis-
lation of which spoke would lead to an
act of usurpation that would cndanger the
rights of the states, and yet goes on to
prove that the President of the United
States does not differ with me in regard to
that constitutional power. Ii the president
! 18th mo m, that yo;pf 7 am ola1 nj