Year: 1860

man in false position BY a instrumentation or
mlsstatement Of his position: his character
forbids that; but still assert was exceeding
y unfortunate If my whole train Of argument
9oes not exclude the conclusion that he has
drawn from it,


Mr. Davis Il will not trespsss long upon
the time OF the Senator from Massachusetts.
ana am sorry to consume another moment of
II. believe it will be recognized, at least on
this side of the chamber that have done some
good service this morning. 1 called the atten-
tion OF the Senator from Illinois to the position
which he occupied in the first part of his
speech which read; and he has explained il
until fnd that the Senator from Illinois and
the President seem to concur exactly. The
senator from Illinois did not want the Execu-
tive to have the power to use the army and the
militia and the navy to 20 into State TO dis
cover whether there were illegal combinations
there or not. That is the only point against
which the President seemed to argue. As to
rest, the President merely referred to the law
not having conferred upon him the power and
the Senator says, certainly the law did not. But
the President did not say the law did not
confer upon him authority as far as he could,
to preserve peace by the exercise of any powers
which he did possess; and thus he did exercise it
by sending troops to Harper Ferry to protect
the public property there, and if need be to
act as posse. L am very glad, therefore.
that have got the Senator and the President
exactly upon the same basis: and if the Sene-
tor had read little further in that letter of
the President, it would not have been necessa
~, perhaps, for me to have quoted the Ian
guaSe which the Senator employed in cOnnec-
tion with the very short extract which he made
from the letter of the President to the Cover
nor of Virginia


But the Senator has said some things which
will very briefly notice. He wanted to know
what 1T was that [ would consider trampling
upon the rights of the States, and I told him;
and, though he had said much upon that sub.
Ject, ne went on to speak of the invasion of one
State by another State and the power not ex-
listing to punish under the judiciary. Has the
Senator forgotten that the very purpose for
which we abandoned the Confederacy and es
taDllshed the Union was to get Government
that would act upon individuals and not States
The Confederacy attempted to act upon States,
and 1T was complete failure The wise men
OF that day then formed a Government which
would act upon individuals; and this General
Government has no power to Law its hand,
upon State-nOne. Why, then, talk about
the Judiciary not. under existing laws having
the power to proceed against the invasion Of
one State by another State?


MIR. DOuglas.-I did not speak at all of an
invasion by State. spoke of an invasion
OK one State by citizens of another State |
did not say word on the other point, one way
or the other.


Mr.. Davis.-I think you will find both. IF.
then, the Senator confines his remarks to per-
sons within State who committed this offence
OF invading the peace and disturbing the tran
guilty of another State, as it was a crime
suppose it would be punishable in the courts
under existing laws; but if not surely need
not, at this day, say am ready to give what
ever additional legislation may be required
cannot suppose the President would hesitate
to approve any law which gave that additional
power to the courts. [ trust he would hesi-
tate, 1 trust he would refuse, if we ever should
be weak enough to attempt to confer upon the
Executive the power to 60 into q State and
there use his executive functions to break up
even illegal and reasonable com binations. 1t
was to that to which his letter was addressed.
1t was not whether the courts in Pennsylvania
could punish these men for illegal combina-
tiOns; it was whether the President of the Uni
ted States could 60 into Pennsylvania and Ohio
to break up these illegal combinations, and t,
prevent them from making a raid upon Vir-
gina. Therefore, think the Senator should be
at least little temperate when he repels the
idea that his remarks were directed, in his criti-
elsm upon the Presidents position, to something
else than the position which the President occu.
pied. If had understood he entirely concurred
with the President that this power was not DOS
sessed; if l had understood he entirely con-
Cured with the President that it would be 2
(IOTprn-
ment 10 attempt to exercise such a power, then
my remarks would not have been made. But
then wOuld have failed to see why he shonId
have criticized the President


But the Senator speaks of treason as being an
offence against the United States Does he
mean that the attack must be made upon all of
the thirty-three States of the Union to make II
treason that 1t Is necessary to attack every
State Of the Union before it becomes treason
against them? Surely the Senator does not
mean that. An attack upon one State is trea.
son against the United States, if committed by
citizen of the States it is war against the
United States, if committed by a foreign Pow
er. An attack upon the most remote acre of
the territory of the United States is war upon
the United States, if committed by foreign
Power, and. treason against the United STATES
IT committed by citizen Of the United States
L was struck, this morning, with a passage in
n letter from gentleman once associated with
us in the Senate, Mr.. Bradbury, Of Maine, ad :
dressed to public meeting. He writes:


"Wecannot fail to perceive that the invasion Of
any one OF the states IS an assault upon the Union
itself. The Constitution secures to each State tho
regulation of its own domestic concerns free from
external Interference. -


That is sound doctrine. | think the Senator
from Illinois could not have seen the necessary
conclusion from his position, when be smoke Of
treason against the United States as beipg
against them-l cannot quotc;his lsnguage-as
II them meant not any one of The United
states, as we'll az every one of the United States


Mr.. Douglas.-The difference between the
senator from Mississippi and myself on this
point, is this: he holds that an assault upon the
state Government of Virginia, with a view TO
suovert it without touching Federal authority,
Is treason against the United States; [ hold that
that Is treason against the State of Virginia, to
De punished by Virginia, and not by the United
States 1t Is true, an assault upon any one State
Is an assault upon the peace of the Union. and
ought to be prevented; but resistance TO the
o'ate government cannot be treason against
me nited States. The forcible resistance 10
the State Government, which arises under
state laws and does not affect Federal autbor.
lty, apprehend must be punished under State
authority, and not as treason against tho
United States. WIG


But, sir, / do not choose to 90 into this ar,,
ment. do not desire to occupy the time Of
tn lse entitled to the floor One word abou.
my criticism upon the President. eYnressIv
refused to interpret the meaning of the pres;y.
dent in his letter to the Governor of Vir.;n;.
although myicandid opinion is that the fair
reading justifes the inference that he tbonvbt
the Constitution did not authorize Congress- tn
confer the authority. He said that he was At
q loss to ind any provision in the Constitution
or laws OF the United States


NJ