Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1860-05-30

question OF slavery ln tue tciIltoTits- W tnc
adjudication of the courts. and that since the
Supreme Court of the United States has
given its decision, he has proven recreant to
his pledge. He said
When We were d. cussing upOn the Driaci-
ple to be inirOduc Il into the Kansas Nebras-
ka bill We all agreed that we were opposed
to the princiEIss advocated by the Republi-
can party. We all agreed that whether
Congress had the power or Not to exclude
slavery from the Territories. it was injurious
20 exercise that power; that Congress ought
Lot to intervene That is what we said. all
the Senators from the South concurred with
that. When We came fnrth.r to de erminc
what vas To be done. after having d cided
that Congress should not intervene. split
The Democrats of the South, and some o
the Democrats of the North agreeing witt
them. in ouT caucus meetings. in discussing
the principles If the bills in providing it,
provisions, in preparing it for discussion in
the Senate, eaid: The Territorial Legisa
ture has no power to exclude the people o
the South. or tn ir prop.r;y, from the Terri
tories, becauss, the Territories are governed
by Congress as Il trustee for all the States;
the Territ, rial Legislature can get no power
bat the power that Congress gives ii, and
Congress itself has no power to exclude our
property firm the Territories. which belong
toIus "a we'll a. TO the free States" The Sen
4tOr from Illinois said differently. The Sena-
tor from Illinois said That ne b lieved the
Territorial Legislature had the right, whilst
tie people OF the Territory were in a terri
torial organ ttiou. to exclude slavery il they
pleased. We split on that; we could not
agree. / admit all that the Senator said
here the other day as to il. He said So then;
he says so now. | complain exac ly of tina,
consistency; bccause when We could not
agree lac said that he would agree with us
to- submit il To the courts, and if The courts
decided ia our favor. he would give up and
join us; and We agreed if the courts decided
against us. that we would give up and Join
him. 1t Is that very consistency that IL COM
pIaiued Of; and shall proceed to prove it.
Il is had faith when the honorable Senator
| no longer wOr-hips at the shrine OF cOnstitu-
tional principle. Processing To agree to
| leave the matter To the decision Of the courts.
protesting to respect the courts in their de-
| cisions, he has gone asiray after false gods.
and is now wOrshiping the idols of evasion
and circumventiOn.
The "bad-faith'i charged upon Mr.. DoUG-
LAS will not be admitted by him or his friends
He does not deny the agreement; but he de-
mics tina. it was the decision in the bred
Scott case TO which be agreed TO submit. In
the absence of Mr.. DOUGLAS, his friend, the
democratic Senator from Ohio, Mr.. PUGH, re-
piled to the allegations Of Mr.. BENJAMIN, and
argued that Mr. BENJAMIS and his cOniedeT-
ates were attempting 10 force Mr. ID. into
an arbitrament that was not provided for
that had not been selected. Here is his view
Of the matter:
Now. sir, how was this question TO b
settled? The Kansas Nebraska bill provided
for its settlement. Ii provided that a writ
of error might lie issued from the Supreme
Court Of the United States to the supreme
court Of the TrrriioFy of Kansas, or of the
Territory of Ne-Lra-ka; that the ordinary
rules which limited the jurisdiction of ih,.
Supreme Court OF the United States should
be- suspended in That particular case. How.
then. WAS the question TO arls,s IL no Ter
rit"rial Legislature ever attacked thu institu
ti"n of slavery. there never wOuld be any
questions; there never would be any cuntro
Vrr>y; there would be no hing 10 settle
But il Territorial Legislature should al
tempt il then by means of this writ of error
the question was To b.. brought before III,
court and was tn be- argued and after argu
mrnt In b. Il. cded; q that decision bay
lug been made upon iuli augment, being un
dcrst"od by The country, wns to be- accrp;e,
by the Democratic party, South and North
81 the end Of it; and ia all our future lFgis-
latiOn with rrspect To the Territories. wheth
ct in e formation OF organical acts or any
thing elsc, We would conform TO IL.
Now, sir, has the question arisen! Not
unless il has arisen in the case OF Kansas
within the last twelve months; and yet wheu
the Senator from Mississippi CMr. Brown
proposes 10 bring the case of Kansas uhdei
consideration, the Senator from Louisiana
thiuks IL is not worth while. lie said so tn
other day. Nov, let us suppose il is refcrre6
To aTbitrament. Any two gentlemen refer
controversy To aTbltrament; they state To
terms OF arbitration. But the Senator iron
Louisiana wants In voueh in somebody els.
arAo toas NOT the arbitrator; rho nd appOsnf
cd 70 decade Gs ease; Irho dsi not hear IL Gccori.H
"a lhs terms q The aIeard; aud 10 peTstsade us
seesPt that as fIiif H,e'a Of The barypH. That j.
| his propositions; that Is what hs has hrea At
| tempting To do this whole day. Has ther.
| been any act of Territorial Legislature ex
Guiding slavery brought under review by ,
Judicial tribunail None. Has there been
any writ Of error az provided ia the Kansas
Nebraska bill! None.
But it is said that in the decision o mother
case that did not arise 10 any Territory; thsi
had been instituted b fore the passage Of tn.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT hill; that Vas not in tn
contemplation OF the pariies; that involved
other and different questions: that. ia the
~
TIA, cass, sstuie lawyers. ike the Senator
from Louisiana, can pick out d taehed SEN
| tances not =, pl,cabie % the question. and
make them decide controversy that wa
never argued by counsel, aud never consider
ell by the court; aud the Senator from Lou.
lsiana cails that tbv iuldllme Mt OF the bargain
That IL ihe pligh,ei hath Yea made; aud 10
refusing that, when we call for tbe award o
The arbitrator. when We call Ter the boad a
slibslissiea, when Ne call tor the case ans
the question. th~ Senator tsll- u that il
another case. upon another Question, NheF,
the counsel die aot suppose 1Ris TO be invol
we'd, be, Win his astutenes~, cah discoyet
certain paragraphs ~ lch, Ia his spiuioa. ar
taniaLnognt - aa award That is The y boil
of it. Ii l. that shich has made ali this con
trosersy. did not Think, ia the year 1854
EoT Ia The year ls5s, thai difference
opinion On tiis pos er OF the Tes risorlal leg
islstafe was Of safilci nj couss queace d
divide meHlb-Fs OF tn Democratic p@Ety. anu
possibly, II the qassiioa stood today y hes,
IL stood then. might be willing. on zccoaai
III agreement with the Senator aad ofhsrs Oh
80 many other paint, % 80 = sazl way 10
rards concession aud compromise Ga that
Bad, ssr, esassisF 4 szP<rsEssz, 90 90 sssz-
ks1d v ~ aeFfA<Fs usa.oseexs lAas - lA< Eaais
q = Has - Aa1E sod sa ssFs<r<s.f e.esos-zk-
~ n~aassd. sd s.sstas, lAss 80 ss-La aAszs ),
9 81. ems dsi<Es@iaafea eus-sas s.snaeF, liza
S<z'alfs ssy l. -, sSes sksA s<ks sss1lx a<zns