Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-05-23

compromise. They nad the manilness " CSAia'S""S
outths principle Of toc6the
and reneal that line reWhy9 'eIt was G that
al! the territory might epaced the
ing; and / hold that after that sacrifice upon their
part; that willingness TO carry out this compromise
begun in 1850, Endorsed in 1882 by the Democratic
and also by the Opposition convention, we OF the
South are under the highest obligation to stand to
it. Now, sir. make no reflection on any honora-
BILE Senator who differs from me on this question:
do them all the justice to say that if they looked
upon it as I do, as a compromise, am very sure
thew would not seek to disturb it. Taking the view
of do believing that the two parties settled down
upon non-interventon feel it to be my duty to ad
here to in the absence Of any great pressing necess
tv which would Justify it's Acknowledgement
Mr.. President, what are the points of difference
between the two parties The Senator from Missis-
sippi if read his resolution Alright does not pro-
nose to favor intervention by Congress to protect
slavery in the Territories at this time; but he de-
cares if it should turn out hereafter that the exist
ing laws are not sufficient to protect under the Con-
stitutlon he is then for legislation What do those
who oppose his resolution say? The Senator from
Ohio mir. Pugh) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr
Doueas say that if hereafter the courts shall make
decisions which cannot be carried out without legis
lation, they will legiSate to carry them out The
Senator from Mississippi says that the bred Scott
decision has settled the question: and he wants de-
claration that We mean to legslae in future These
gentlemen admitting. as they must that the judges
have, in the bred Scott case expressed their opin
ion that Territorial Legislature cannot legslate ad
versely to slavery, say, however, that point in fact
was not presented in the case; but that if such was
the set lei opinion of the court. when proper case
is directly presented it will so decide; and they
stand ready to carry out that decision of the court
when it shall DO made. .-. a.:
Then, do we not all come together on the same
point? The Senator from Mississippi says that if
n crrhic oh ho
without legislation, he is for legislation. These gen.
tlemen say that when the court does make decisions
they will submit to them and carry them out 1t
seems therefore, that they travelling in lines that
will converge and come together at a certain point
Then, why dispute now in advance?
This may be readily illustrated. Suppose I have
controversy with neighbor about the title to
piece of land Neither Of us is in hurry to have
possession We are willing to await the decision of
the court. He comes to Inc, however, and says:
81 find that the court, expressing an opinion in
another case, which admit is not like ours and
does not present the facts has declared never
theess, that in case like yours and mine my title
would be good, and therefore wish you to give me
deed acknowledging my title to be good, though
do not want possession now, end am willing to wait
for 1t until the case is decided" reply to him, II
admit that the count may have expressed such an
opinion, but the point between did not arise in
that case, was not argued by my counsel or any
other counsel; all can say to you is, if that he the
opinion of the court, of course. when they decide
case, they will decide in your favor, and shall
then surrender to you; but am not willing to as
sumo beforehand that the court will so decide" 1t
seems to me- them Mr. President that in the present
condition of the case there is no necessity for eel
ing on either sde or for declarations in advance.
My second point was, that New Mexico had al
ready established slave code and given us more
territory than should have gotten under the Mis-
souri, line. If carried out ! come now to the third
point and that is what has grown out of the decis
ion of the court in the bred Scott case When this
subject was under debate in 1850, we of the South
objected to nonntervention on the ground that it
would leave the Mexican law in force; and inasmuch
as the Supreme Court had maintained the opinion
in case from Florida, and perhaps in some other
decisions. that where territory acquired the 10.
cal law might remain in force We were disinclined
| to take non-intervention without repeal of the
! Mexican law During that interesting controversy,
We held caucus of southern members, consisting
of Senators and Representatives and on that occa-
sion the Senator from Georgia, who usually sits be-
hind me, (Mr Toomhs, introduced proposition in
to our caucus that We would support the compromise
measures if they would repeal the Mexican laws and
substitute the British colonial laws which prevailed
in our colonies prior to the Revolution That was
adopted and that gentleman moved it in the House
Of Representatives as an amendment, but it was
defeated. ] am free to say that if at that time We
had been satisfied that the court would hold that
uuder the Constitution slave property could exist
and be protected in the Territories, without refer
ence to local laws, l am very sure We should all
have voted for the compromise of 1850
CoNCLUD ED ON FOURTH PAGE.