The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-10-05
THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMocR At

Territorial government from introducing sla.
very, If the honorable Senator believes that, II
he is sincere in that opinion. there sits tribu-
nal below US who will pass upon the validity
and constitutionality Of any act that we may
pass.
have no hesitation, therefore. in saying that
shall vote against the amendment of the Sem
atOr from Ohio. The clause as it stands is am.
pie. 1t submits the whole authority to the
Territory to determine for itself. That, in my
judgment, is the place where it ought to be
put. If the people of these Territories choose
to exclude slavery, SO far from considering it
as wrong done to me or to my constituents,
| shall not complain of it. 1t is their own
business.
The debate then became general, and the
Senate adjourned without taking the ques-
ton.
The debate upon the general character of
the bill continued from day to day until the
I'd Of March, when the amendment propos.
ed by Mr.. CHASE again was noticed.
Mr.. BADGER again referring to it used
the following strong language:
The language of the bill, as amended npon
the motion of the honorable chairman of the
Committee on Territories, is full, complete and
ample, giving the people of these territories,
through their governments, the unrestricted
and unqualified right to decide upon all their
domestic relations. slavery incladed and then
the hOn0rOble Senator from Ohio as if he sup.
posed that either we were so dull that we could
not understand, or that the public were so pur-
blind that they could not see. proposes to add,
as an amendment explanatory of the previous
language, that they shall have power to pro-
hibit slavery. He knows, sir, he means, sir,
that that language, so standing, shall have, as
IN the court below it would have, the necessa.
ry effect of controlling, limiting, and restrain
ing the former language, so that the territories
should have no right over this subject but to
prohibit slavery. If it does not mean this-if
he does not intend this-why did he refuse to
insert the words which the instructive candor
and openness of my honorable friend from ILL
nois (Mr. Shields) suggested, "to prohibit or
allow slavery?" Sir, no member of this body
who is in favor of the bill need be in the least
troubled.
The Senator from Ohio feels himself bound,
IN order to resist the introduction of slavery
into any Territory, to disavow the obligation
of all cOmpacts, to resist the performance of
every engagement, to disavow any, however
solemn, stipulations. He can never mean but
one thing by any amendment which he offers to
this bill, and that thing is mischief to the mea-
sure.
Mr.. Cass said: Well, sir. the hon.
orable Senator from Ohio proposes to insert
provision to take from the people the power of
allowing slavery.
Mr.. Chase-No, sir.
Mr.. Cass-Certainly that is the effect of it.
You allow them the power to prohibit slavery
by your amendment, but not to establish it.
The original provision, as it stands, gives them
both po,cers, subject to the limitations of the
Constitution. Then the effect of the amend
ment of the honorable Senator from Ohio, if
adopted, would be to throw doubts upon the
powers, and then, afterwards, in clearer lam
guage give but one, it is strong intimation
that we destroy the effect of our own previous
provision. 1t casts a doubt upon it. The true
view, therefore, is to repeat both, if repetition
is necessary.
Mr.. Mason, of Virginia, said understand
the Senator from Ohio to say that the object Of
amendments which he has offered to the bill,
was to place the whole subject of legislation,
in its most ample form, in the hands of the PEG.
pie of the Territories and yet he offered,
think, as all amendment, a proposition to au.
thorize that people to legislate for the prohibi-
ton of slavery, and refused the suggestion
which came from Senator on this floor to give
Viz oltClhotiNC w VIC odluC pCOplcs III tuclI
discretion. to legislate for the admission of sla
very. That thing has been exposed upon this
floor over and over again.
The discussion again wandered from the
amendment to variety of topics, some of
them personal in their nature. At half.past
six o'clock P. NJ. the Senate proceeded to
vote on the amendment, which was rejected
as follows:
YEAs-Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin,
Fessenden, Fish, Foot Hamlin, Seward, Smith.
Sumner and Wade, 10.
NAYs-Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger,
Bell, Benjamin, BrOdhead, Brown, Butler, Clay
of Alabama, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge,
OF Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin,
Jones, OF Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris,
Petit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slide:l,
Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller and Williams,
SO.
This is the history of the origin, pro-
gress, and fate of the CHASE amendment.
1t proposed to allow the people of the Ter.
ritories to "prohibit " slavery, but denied
to them the power to introduce" 1t
was, in effect, restriction of the powers Of
the legislature to a prohibition, when the
object of the bill was to leave the legisla.
ture free and unrestricted in the exercise oil
all constitutional legislation to prohibit or
introduce. As General CAss said, it was a
proposition to take from the legislature the
power to admit slavery.
Republican ON the St. Cloud Debate
Between Gilman and Window.
The Sank Rapids New Era, of the 9th