Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1860-05-18
CONGRESS.
REPORTED FOR THE ALEXANDRIA GAZETTE
Senate, Thursday, May II.
The Senate assembled at noon.


At the conclusion of the reading of the
Journal, but six members were present, the
remainder attending the official reception of
the japanese Embassy by the President of
the United States.
On motion the Senate took O recess OF an
hour.
Upon reasscmblng,
Mr. Chandler wished to call up a private
bill
Mr. Slidell, Of La, objected.
Mr.. Anthony, Of r. l., said that in his
speech of Yesterday, Mr. Davis had claimed
for Maryland the honor of introducing reli-
gious liberation. He claimed that honor tor
Roger Williams, in short speech.
Mr.. Davis, of Miss, renewing his speech
of yesterday, said that the Democratic
party differed upon the construction of one
of the principles of its platform. That
question should be settled, for if the Demo-
cratic party was not party of principle, 1t
had better be dissolved The Senator from
Illinois had, with more eloquence than was
his wont, painted his reception at Chicago
after the passage of the compromise mea-
sures. What was the measure that caused
that commotion? The fugitive slave law. =
The Senator from Illinois did not vote for it.
That Senator said he would scorn the nomi-
nation Of the Democracy, unless he was its
first choice. What need of such declina-
tion he could not be it's nominee unless he
received two third vote. 1t was beauti-
full sentiment Of Mr.. Lowndes, that the
Presidency should neither be sought or de-
clined. The Senator from Illinois certainly
would not decline it; that Senator was the
best Judge whether he sought it.
Mr.. Davis further denied that the seceders
from Charleston were disorganizers, or that
there was any ground to suppose that the
plan of Mr.. Iancey was any indication OF
their purpose. lie denied also, that Mr.
Stephens letter sustained the Interpretation
put upon it by Mr.. Douglas.
He reviewed the action of the Charleston
Convention, said that the adoption of the
minority platform was the result OF that add
vantage which the law gives to vigilance
The Contention decided that where States
had instructed their delegates to vote as a
unit, they should SO vote; when not so in
strncteI, they might vote as individuals
This carried the platform, for it was an as
ccrtaincd fact, that had the vote been taken
either by individuals, scveraly, or by States
rs IL unit, the minority platform could never
have received the approval of the Conven-
ton. In the ballot in that Convention, MIR.
Douglas had received but votes from Staets
certainly Democratic. Was this Il reason that
he should link the Democratic party to the
car Of his triumph.
He denied that the Baltimore Convention
ever intended, in nominating Gen. Cass, to
endorse his Nicholson letter. The Senator
had quoted South Carolina as sustaining
that letter.
Mr. Douglas said that he asserted, not that
they endorsed the letter, but that they made
no test upon it.
Mr. Davis continuing. said that he had
not mistaken that Mr.. Douglas asserted that
in supporting Mr. Richardson for Speaker,
the South had supported squatter sovereign
tv. Did not the Senator see that such q line
Of argument proved that Illinois was for
protection in voting for him Mr.. Davis) for
Vice President, lii favor Of Know Nothing
ism in voting for Mr.. Smith, Of North Caro-
lima, ~ Speaker Of the House of Representa-
tives. lie reviewed the doctrine OF protec-
ton, and contendcl it had always been re-
c"gn>ed by the first statesmen OF the repub-
lie lie had not, until OF late, known that
Mr. Douglas believed that Territorial leg
iSI;iture might tQ,rtMty interfere with slave
property.
He did nos now understand Mr.. Douglas
precise position He wished to know how
far he would allow the Territorial legislature
to proceed. If that Senator were President,
would he veto Il law repeating a territorial
law abolishing slavery?
Mr.. Doug a>-lt is time for me to answer
what bills would 81 gu, when am in u po-
Sition to be called upon To do so.
Mr.. Davis said he had M desire to press
an answer upon this or any other subject.
Mr.. Douglas replied that the Senator could
ask what he pleased; he would answer what
he saw tit.
Mr.. Davis wished TO know what the SEN
tor meant by "Non-inlervention."
Mr.. Douglas responded that the Democratic
party meant that the subject of slavery, eth
cr in States or Territories should be 10 the
language Of the Georgia resolutions, removed
from Congress, forever.
Mr.. Davis wished to know if the Terrific
rial Legislature passed laws TO nnliiy the fu
gitive slave law, would he vote for their re-
peal.
Mr.. Douglas declared his willingness to
give whatever additional legislation was
necessary to secure the rendition of fugitive
slaves
Mr.. Davis said he thanked the Senator for
his patriotic response, but it was not an an
swcr to his question. Would he vote for Il re-
peal of the Territorial law.
Mr.. Douglas responded that the Supreme
Court would declare such laws unconstitu-
tiona and no Congressional action would be
required.
lIr. Davis said he disliked to make further
query, but all the Senator's replies sugges-
ted another question to know what the an
swcr meant.
The Senator spoke Of the fugitive slave lar
did he mean that slavery was creature of
local law?
Mr.. Douglas said he had said nothing
about the fugitive slave laW. lie spoke of
fugitive slaves and their surrender under the
Constitution.
Mr. Davis continuing, discussed the prin-
pie of popular sovereignty. He claimed that
under this doctrine, Mr.. Douglas was bound
to have supported the, Lecompton constitu-
ton of Kansas, and to oppose any interior
cnce with the affairs of Utah. lie reviewed the
discussion on the compromise Of 1850, which
he contendcd proved nothing for democratic
adherence to the principle of "squattcr SOW
erigntv."
lie concluded by declaring that the South