New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-17
XXXVIrH CONGRESS.
SENATE. WASHINGTON, May 49, i1e

| Mr. GREEN Dem, Mo- from the Commueo ~
Territories reported the House bill for the admission
Kapsas without recommendation He gave notice ths
he would introduce several amendments dengned q
protect the rights of the people Of the several STATES
and 10 carry out in good faith the treaties Wild .oe
Indian tribes Made the special order for "Wednesday
| On motion Of Mr.. BROWN (Dem Miss, Saturday
next was set apart for the District business
Mr.. HALE rep, N. H. offered q resolution, that
| the Postmaser-General inform the Senate when tbs
Pcs,-0Mee Department first had knowledge Of tns
alleged declaration in the New-York PostOce and
whether the Sixth Auditor had faithfully CARED ous
the provisions Of the act OF March, 1851. Adopted.
Mr.. DAVIS (Dem., Mis- introduced bill 70 regu-
Mr. LANE Dem, Oregon moved to take Up tbs
Oregon and Washington-war bill. Made the special
order for Mondayweek.
The consideration of the bill for the relief Of Ansoa
Dart resumed.
Mr.. DOOLITTLE REP, Wis., urged the passage
Of the bill.
NJ. LANE rejoincd, saying il was an attempt on
the part of the claimant TO fitch money from the
Treasury. He charged him with negiecting duties
while Superintendent Of Indian Affairs in Oregon.
Mr.. D0OLITTLE said that Dart had made thirteen
treaties.
Mr. LANE-Yes. And the Senate looked into them,
ard found them worthless and never acted on them.
Without further action, the special order, being n.
Overland Mail BILL taken up, and made the SPECIAL
order for O'Clock tomorrow.
Mr.. Davis's resolution came up
for the courtesy shown in allowing bin 10 postpone
bis remarks till to-day, and feared that be might be
unable to say all he wished to-day, in consequence OF
sudden attack of a disease contracted some years
ago, in speaking in the open air, defending these
principles. He should proceed to defend his action
in certain cases. and referred first 10 what 10 known
as the Chase amendment TO the Kansas bill. Mr..
Chase of Ohio offered an amendment to the bill under
which The people of The Territories through their
appropriate representatives, may, if they bit, pro-
"hib the existence of Slavery therein" This was pre-
eisey the same in legal effect the amendment Of
fered to the Compromise measures Of 1850 by Mr..
Chase. When this amendment was offered BY Mr..
Chase, it stood in the position Of amendment 70
an amendment. Mr., Pratt of Maryland, appealed to
putting in the word introduce" so it would read,
" The people of the Territory may prohibit or nrodnoe
Slavery. This was objected to out Of order by Mr.
Seward, and was not received. Part Of the remarks
amendment Of Mr. Chase TO bc voted upon, and it WAS
rejected, because the words offered by Gov Pratt
not accepted and yet, in the face of these facts,
this vote has been cited against him Mr. Dougas and
he has been charged with being unwilling to allow the
bill to either against for Slavery in the Terrific
res. The debates show that it was the intention OF
the bill to allow the people to do as they chose.
Chase receive the amendment of Gov. Pratt "a to
make il "A far test.
Mr. PUGH Dem, Ohio read from the speech Of
Mr. Badger, and the vote by Yeas and Nays.
Mr. DOUGLAS resumed-Thus it will be seen that
Mr. Chase's amendment rejected, because 1t did
not leave the people free 10 act on the subject OF
Slavery either TO introduce prohibit and these rea-
cons were assigned by Southern men, and If those who
cited this vote against him had read the debates they
proved exactly the of what they charge has
also Teen cited against him that he had voted against
the Trumbull amendment to what was called the
Toombs bill as an evidence that he inconsistent.
II he amendment was read. The amendment was 70
declare that in the bill for the admission OF Kansas II
was the intent and meaning of Congress 10 allow tho
people either to introduce exclude Slavery,
"a tbav md
was rejected on two grounds one was 1t was
irrelevant appended to a State bill. and
the other ground was that it was an act OF usur-
patton by Congress to attempt to adudicate the mean
ing Of that Territorial bill that belonged to the Courts
to decide as TO the meaning, and not TO the Senate
and House of Representatives. No mai minated
that 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
read and the vote by which it was rejected-ll
TO 81 Thus it appears that those who voted for the
Trumbult amendment declared il the true in
ent and meaning of the bill, but they assigned
reason that it was irrelevant and usur-
alton of power. Mr.. Bayard said it was
nothing more nor LEES than attempt 10 give
judicial exposition, by Congress, to the Consi-
ution and that i was usurpaton of judicial power;
nd yet we have here resolutions under debate,
which Congress is called 10 act and to adudicate this
identical question The object of these resolutions is
ask the Senate TO decide this very question, which Mr..
Bayard, in 1856 denounced as beyond the constitu-
tional authority of The Senate and of usurpa-
Bayard denounce that attempt, who are now called
upon decide that very question which, by the Kan
sas BILL was referred to the Courts, and banshed from
Congress forever and which they pledged themselves
never 10 decide. He would hold them to their
pledges 10 leave this question alone. The Senator
from Virginia Mr.. Hunter) declared that the intent
and understanding of the Kansas bill was that one
point referred to the Courts, and that the linz
itaton Of the Constitution the authority of Terri
torisl Legislature. And the Senator not only made
that statement them but again in February Of last year
he quoted that very speech As true exposition OF the
meaning of the bill and reafirmed il his sentiments.
Now the Senate is called on in violation Of the
ing and pledges Of the Kansas BILL 10 decide that very
question. He submitted whether this was carrying
GU the true intent and meaning OF that act. In the
debate this Toombs bill, his colleague Mr.. Trum-
bull put the question to him whether not the Terri
toria Legislature had the power to exclude Slavery.
His opinions on that subject had been heard
over and over again, and he did not choose
10 answer the question, and referred him to
the Judiciary to ascertain whether the power ex-
listed. He believed the power did exist; others be.
eved differently and they agreed to refer TO tho Jul
dietary and abide by their decisions and true 70 his
agreement be referred his colleague TO the Courts to
fnd out. The fact that he referred him to the Court
had been cited against him evidence that he did not
think the power existed but after the evidence ad-
duced yesterday and the debates just read no man has
excuse for not knowing his opinion. Il was not ha
opinion that to govern, but the opinion OF the
Court arising under the territorial law. when me
case shall arise, and the Supreme Court shall pro-
nOunce Judgment, il will be binding on MN, ana on
every citizen and must be carried out IN good faith,
with all the power of this Government We are TOLD
that the Court has already decided IL So there ls an
end of the controversy lie. tue decision 80 sn
Rr ~ IN the resolutions Of the Senate give any adj
itiopaI force to the authority of the Supreme Court
of the United States Does it need an indorsement
of the Charleston Convention to give 1t validity
the decision ia made ia the law Of the land and we
are bound TO abide by it. If the decisions il not made
what right have you to pass resolutions which arc to