The weekly mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado County, Calif.) 1861-1862, 1861-08-24

| during tne IaSt 6ebhloh VI NOHSIcHS VIC"
the Republicans were in majority IN
this body?
Mr.. D0uglas-I understand the ques'
ton, and | choose TO answer it in my
own way. | say they knew they had
the power to pass these measures in both
Houses Of Congress. They consulted and
c0nversed about some of these mea 'urcs /;
approached dis side Of the chamber. -
They knew that they had the power to
pass the bills, if they brought them in.
But, sir, believe they had even major
ity fjr considerable portion OF the time,
in consequence Of the absence Of Mr..
Pugh. Mr.. Salisbury, and perhaps other
Senators on this side. But | am not go
ing TO allow the gentleman to eVadc this
well known truth bv any such question
In addition 10 the absence Of Mr.. Pugh
and Mr.. Salisbury, it was well known
that the two Senators from Texas would
not vote against such measures.
Mr.. CollaIncr-That was more than we
knew.
Mr.. Douglns more than you knew,
because one Of them certainly, ifnOt both,
, told u+ so from his seat il the Senate.
But, Mr.. President, let us look at this
il the excuse is going TO be want Of pow.
er. They got up force bill in the House
and had the power to pass it at any m =
mcnt there, but postponed it from time
to time until the President elect got here,
and then it was put to sleep at once,
Strnngled, and never allowed 10 zee the
! light or breathe the breath Of life. Why
so? What is the inference? Why dkl
they not pass it in the House, and send dN
UP hercH They sent to Us bill u an-
thorize the Postmaster General to suS-
pend the mails. There was no difficulty
in passing it here. They talked about
passing law authorizing the abolition Of
the ports of entry. There vas no diff
Guilty in the passage of It. Why not pro-
pose it then? The ouly inference l.,
that they did not want them. Did they
not know that they hid no such nuthori.
ty? Did not the chairman Of the Com
mittee Of Ways and Means know that he
could not collect revenue except at the
port? Will the Senators on that side Of
the Chamber tell uS that they were igno-
rant Of the state Of the laws on these
great cucStionsY Will the chairman Of
the Committee on Military Affairs, with
al his experience and ability md vigi-
lance, tell us that he did not know of this
absence Of authority? Will the chairman
Of the Naval Committee, one Of the Oldest
members Of the body, who has served
here for twelve or fifteen years on the
committee, tell us that he did not know
the Pr, sident had no power to blockade
ports of the United States without the
authority Of CongressY 1t will not do
for that side ofthc Chamber, distinguished
as it justly is for its great ability and
learning, to plead that they did not know
anything about the Government they
were about to take possession Of They
did know II; and knowing 1t, they did
not put nny bill on its passage, norpropoSe
to do it.
But, sir, if 1t be their policy TO use the
war power to collect revenue, to blockade
the ports and recapture these forts and to
execute the laws Of the United States in
the Confederate States, why not say 50
If it be the policy of Mr.. Lincoln to carry
ont that line Of conduct, why not allow
him the opportunity Of saying so? They
know that | have thrust myself In be.
tween the secession movement Of the
South and the war construction of the
Presidents message. to allay the sppre
tensions cf the Union ncn Of the South.
cln States. have taken this position as
u Union man, as friend If peace, from
the conscientious conviction that Justly
and correctly interpret the President :
inaugural. If do not interpret it cor
rcctly, il am giving it meaning he did
not intend, why do they not allow this
resolution to pass, and obtain an answer
which will correct the error into which |
have been lei by the inaugural, il it be
an error? Senators have no right tO
leave me under the conviction that | in.
tcrprct the message correctly, and remain
silent if do not, and deprive me Of the
means Of getting at the truth by the prop
er inquiry. Why this sen>itivencAs on
the subject, if do not interpret the
President correctlyS No Republican has
yet vcnturcd to deny the correctness OF
my Interpretation. No Senator from that
side has vcnturcd to affirm that the Pres.
identS policy is not peace. No one hns
venturcd to assert that he means what is
called the coercive policy and l nppre.
hcnd that no one of them is authorized to
say so. No one being authorized to con.
tradict mo on these points; aud no one
being able TO deny from the language OF
the inaugural that put the correct in
depreciation upon it, find no other res.
ponse than silence. Why not let the peo.
pie know what the policy is? The coull.
try now is overwhelmed with doubt and
anxiety; business Is suspended; public
confidence is Sdestrnycd commerce is dis
tnrbcd; bankruptcy is staring your bcSt
merchants in the face. One word from
the White House will save them from
ruin; one word will gladden. the heart OF
every patriot in the land. Let that word
be spoken. 1t will be, if Senators allow
this resolution to be passed. Let that
word be spoken, and let that word be
"peace," and there will be such shout
Of joy resoumding through this land as
has not been witnessed since the &C.
acknowledgement Of our independence. -
Why not allow this to be done2
Again: there are other reasons why
il is important TINT tho word should bu
spoken, that the policy should bc known.
There are elections pending for members
Of Congress in large number of the
States. The people have right to know
whether the policy is peace or war. They
have right to know whether they are ia
send members here in favor Of peace or
in favor of war. Is it dealing fairly with
the people, to keep them in the dark on
this question until the members Of Con.
gresS are elected, and then to prccipitate
the country into war, without giving the
people an opportunity to vote upon it I
The amendment proposed by the Sen
ator from New Hampshire shows where
the tender point is in regard to this reso
luton. lie wishes to strike out 80 much
as inquiries whether there is any other mo
tive or reason for holding on to forts in the
scceded States, Except TOrtugns and Key
West,) and recapturing the others, thar
a purpose TO reduce those States into sub