Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-03-17


of Congress, as called to lcgslate for the whole
nation on subjects involving the separate and
peculiar interests of its several sections. This
difficulty became apparent in relation to the
common domain, which was to be administered
by authority of Congress in such way as to
promote, if possible, the interests alike of the
slave and the free States. Between these States
there existed a difference of social systems, and
such was the nature of the social system pecu-
liar to the South that, within the same munich
pal limits, it could not coeXist with the social
system established at the North, as ii would be
paradoxical to say that the same State could be
a slaveholding and a non-slaveholdng commu-
nifty. But these two social systems could cock
list within the limits of the same national Con-
federacy, as our past experience abundantly
suiliced to show. Within the limits of the
several States this contrariety CT social systems
created no difficulty and raised no contest, but
it was not so in regard to the common territory
of the country. In respect TO the principles on
which it should be regulated there was a con-
trovcrsy between the representatives of these
respective systems. How was this controversy
to be adjustedP lie knew of no better resource
than that afforded by the example of our fathers
in dealing with this same question.
Mr.. CoLLAMER then entered into a careful
analysis of the Legislation had with reference to
the Territories north of the Ohio, the territory
coded by North Carolina and South Carolina,
the territory acquired from Georgia, and the
territory purchased from France, for the pur-
pose of showing that Congress had assumed
with regard to each and all of them the power
to regulate the subject of slavery, and, as was
well known the power to regulate implied the
power to prohibit. Congress, it is true, had
not always exercised this latter power, but it
was restrained only by considerations of ex-
pediency.
Reviewing the proceedings which resulted in
the formation of the Missouri compromise and
the compromise of 1850, he stated that, taken
Jointly, they were supposed to have decided the
status of all our unoccupied domain with refer
encc to slavery, until in 1854, by the passage of
the kansasN,braska act the earlier compact
was broken. For thus reopcning a question
that had been laid to rest, many excuses were
pleaded. 1t was said that the people of the
North had not been true to the Missouri line
that they had refused to extend it to the Pa
ciiic, that ii was contrary to the principles of
the compromises tf 1850, and lastly, that it
was unconstitutional. Mr.. {. then proceeded
TO criticise, with much caustic wit each of these
pleas, and sought to show what he deemed their
insufiicency, and traced the progress Of events
under the kansas-Nebraska act for the purpose
of cyincing that it had proved a failure, and,
as such, did not offer a legislative precedent
worthy of imitation in the future.
He next yindicated the action Of Vermont
from the charge that she had violated her Fed
cral obligations in relation to fugitive slaves
because She had enacted what was called "per-
sonal liberty bill When in 1912 the Supreme
Court Of the United Strtes decided that the
Stakeholder had tie eight to reclaim his abscon-
uIns Si',e' o'ch WITHOUT process OF 'aw' II was
safe from unlawful se;g,,ro ~, ,bn I'D ~ ,,I
disposed and reckless men, and it was simply
to guard against sucf acts of violence and out
rag 'Iiat 'hose laws were passed Which nave
c;ati3n Tbn ~co - Vop oU " Go;s"J M
legislation which wascontrary TO the Cons,itu-
ton of the United Safes, and the judiciary Of
Vermont more Ioyalthan that OF Georgia, was
tho S,,,r"n,o Cr, Is ut.l'io,S 'ii'''e y" =
the laws in oues,io, were unconventional ,bcv
could be tested by IN appeal to the latter tribu-
MAJ. -
,.a',,ds m ,,h"h ''n "uNIi.eu 10 ','e various
had been threatened and declared ,hat il WIS
the simple purpose 4 the Republican party, so
lar as the SUBJECT OF slavery was concerned, to
n, Iea,, t' m,s,HuI' Ggpromss Il no. IN name
tension of slavery i,o tho reg;on Fran, ,,b;oh 4,
had been excluded by the solemn agreement of
20 ihcir purpose 'au TINS extent and no
lie closed his rcmo,ks with Ioorrod ord
elaborate review of the bred Scott decision.
Friday and Monday we're consumed in dis.
cussins the case Of Tbodieus. HYATT \ contomo.
cious witness. After IN, rcoding If n volp,ri-
mons ons,vor bv Mr. u,o.,ho Son,.o .l;o.,,,,,i
until Monday. when n resolution oferoj hv Mr.
Mason to commit the witness until bo should
be willing to answer. Was after discussion he
Mcssrs Sumner and Hale ooa;ns, and Ne
Fesseuden. Davis. Crit,cndcn and others IN E,
vor. adontcd yeos "a NAYS IN
the House was made spcci,l order for Tbrrsdo,
yeas 81. NAYS %.
The hin amending tho oc. os,ol,Hsh;,,, a.,
court of claims was passet. yeas 10 poys 1G. :,
provides that far all spr,. mot oyor s3ooo ,Lo
decison Of the corr, shon ,,o GnoI oa1 u,e
money maid nj once. and on al lorno sun,s ,Lo
L. $. solicitor NAV carry the same hv n,no,I !,
he chooses. TO fine L. s sunreme conr,