Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-05-11

now. What was there in it, and was there in
it now? Michigan was known to be in favor
of the constitution, the Union, and the en-
forcement of the laws, even to the letting of
blood, if need be, and that is all there was and
is in the letter. Let the most be made of it.
The Senator from Georgia says didn't shed
any blood. How much blood did he shed?
Will somebody inform us the exact quantity?
Senator Hill-The difference between US was
as I was not in favor of shedding anybody's
blood.
Senator Chandler-Nor I, except to punish
treason and traitors.
Continuing, Senator Chandler said the Sena-
tor from Georgia was not the man to talk about
other men saving their own blood. He took
care to put his blood in Fort Lafayette, where
it was out of the way of both rebel and Union
bullets. He (Chandler) then now was in
favor Of the government of the United States
and abhorred the idea of State sovereignty over
national sovereignty, and was then as now pre-
pared even to shed blood to save blood, but the
Senator from Georgia was, as he testified be-
fore the committee, Union secessionist. He
would like to know what that meant. He
could not understand it. The Senator from
Georgia thought the South had a right to be
solid. The North would destroy the Union.
The South was no more solid to-day than in
1857, and even SINCE and no quarrel with the
North made 1t solid. It was solid because
it was determined to rule or ruin the nation.
It tried the ruin scheme with arms and failed;
it comes back to ruin it by withholding sup
plies to carry on the government. Men have
changed since 1857, but not measures. The
other side then fought to overthrow the govern
ment: now they vote and talk for the self-same
purposes. You are to-day as you were then,
concluded Chandler, determined either to ruin
the government and you can't do it.
Senator Hill said he would only remark that
the testimony referred to by Chandler was
taken in shorthand before the ku-klux COM
mittee of Atlanta, and printed without his
revising or seeing it. There were typographical
and verbal errors in it as printed. and the term
Union secessionist had certainly never been
| used by him in his life.
Senator Window wished to refer to scrap
of history suggested by Senator Hills assertion
that secession was brought about by the ex-
| tremists of the North, who threatened the
property of the South. In February, 1861, a
Republican House of Representatives. by a
| two-thirds vote passed an amendment to the
constitution prohibiting the passage of any
constitutional amendments giving Congress
power to interfere with slavery in any State
| whose laws recognized it. Senator Wiadom
said he was not here to defend that amend.
ment, but it was passed and submitted to the
people. A few days afterward Lincoln, in his
first inaugural alluded to apprehensons among
the Southern people that the accession OF
the Republicans to power would
mean danger to their property and
assured them that such apprehensions were
groundless, and that interference with slave
| holding was not contemplated. Ample proof
of the correctness of his assurance was open.
That was the manner, said Window, in which
the extremists of the North compelled the peo
pie of the South to secede because they feared
they would lose their property.
Senator Window gave way for motion t.
adjourn by Senator Beck, who suggested tina
Window continue his remarks on Monday, b,
which time it is thought the political provision
of the bill will be reached. With this under
standing the Senate adjourned.