Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-01-06

w-Mr. BRowN, of Miss, in speech in
the Senate on the third instant, dissented
from views of the Presidents message re
iating to slavery. A Geographic sketch of
his remarks makes him say
He called attention to that portion of the
Presidents message which ref, rs to the Dred
Scott decision as settling the slavery agita-
ton. hut could not agree with him that the
Supreme Court has done what it could. The
auction has not been settled, and hence
continuance OF The controversy. He agreed
with the President that the Supreme Court
had adjudged the right OF n ci'izcn to carry
slaves into a Territory and did not believe
the Territorial Legislature had the power 10
destroy or override that decision. The Presi-
dent had said further that property in slaves.
to his knowled had not been disturbed in
any of the Territories To that he disagreed.
The whole course Of the anti-slavery men in
Kansas was to disturb the rights of slave
holders. Was it not interference with slavcI Y
in the Territories To shoot down slavehold-
ers in cold blood. hunt them down like wild
beasts, and destrny their property The
whole contest in Kansas was waged against
the rights of slave holders. The President
had further said that in case OF such interfer-
snce the judiciary could apply the remedy,
aud il was time enou9hto aet WHEN the inter
ference Was attempted. He thought The ex-
listing laws entirely Insufficient and the time
Is now arrived Tor further legislation: and
Congress was impcratiyeiy called on to act
at once. 1t was too late TO act when the
mischief was done. The President las asked
you in advance 10 strengthen his arm to pro-
& CT the persons and property of American
citizens Ola The lsil mus, aud that can be done.
Why cannot the arm of the Executive and
Judiciary be strengthened to protect slavery
in Kansas?
AIr. Brown then went into an argument to
show that the courts could not furnish pro-
lection TO slavery without statutory laws.
He avowed his desire for the enactment of
such laws. They might call it slave code
il they please, hut he no more asked for u
slave code thaD others had asked for a horse
code or a COW code. While be had a tongue
to speak. h. would demand his rights under
the constitution and laws. He disavowvd
again any Intention to assail the President.
but must he lac told that because he was a
Democrat and The President Democrat be
must not express lis views, because he might
injure the Democratic partyl He would see
toe ID InOcrhtic party destroyed before he
would consent 10 withhold the honest express
sion of his settiments. He saw that without
further legislation there would never be
another slave Territory. and consequently no
more slave States. Free Territories were
pressing Tor admission into the Union, and is
would not be long. unless slave States were
admitted. beiore L c free States would bave
two-lhirds. sufficient to change the ConstitII-
iion. That done, the purpose avowrd by
the Senator from y York, TO crush out
slavery. under con>ti uiional forms, coald be
accomplished. What would become OF The
bred Scott decision when the Sapreme Court
h in the hands Of the anii-rlavery party. lie
clo.ed by ayowiug hiniselfa Union man; still,
h. wished TO multiply the slave States. In
order Ia preserve the Union, which ouF
fathers had made a slay,holding one.