Year: 1860

itate, trust he would refuse, if we ever
should be weak enough to attempt to confer
on the executive the power to go into state
& there use his executive functions to break
up even illegal and reasonable combinations
1t was to that to which his letter was adrcsd
1t was not whether the courts in Pennsyl-
vania could punish these men for illegal
combinations; it was whether the President
of the United States could 20 into Penn
sylvania or Ohio to break up these illegal
combinations, and to prevent them from
making raid upon Virginia. Therefore, I
think the Senator should be at least a little
temperate when he repels the idea that his
remarks were directed, in his criticism upon
| the Presidents position, to something else
than the position which the President occu-
pied. If had understood he entirely con-
cured with the President that this power
was not possessed; if had understood he
entirely concurred with the President that
it would be a violation of State sovereignty
for the government to attempt to exercise
such a power, then my remarks would not
have been made. But, then, I do not see
| why he should have criticised the President.
| But the senator speaks Of treason, as be-
| ing an offense against the United States-
Does he mean that the attack must be made
upon all the thirty three states Of the Union
to make it treason that it is necessary to
attack every state of the Union before it be-
comes treason against them 4? Surely the
senator does not mean that. An attack
upon one state is treason against the United
States, if committed by citizen of the
States; it is war against the United States
if committed by foreign power. An at
tack upon the most remote acre Of the ter
ritory of the United States is war upon the
United States if committed by foreign
power, and treason against the U. States
if committed by citizen of state. Twas
struck, this morning, with passage in
letter from gentleman once associated with
US in the senate, Mr.. Bradbury, of Maine,
which he addressed to public meeting:


1--WE cannot fail to perceive that the in
vasion of any one Of the sta,es is an assault
upon the Union itself The constitution
secure to each state the regulation of it's
own domestic concerns, free from external
influence"


That is sound doctrine think the sem
ator from Illinois could not have seen the
necessary conclusion from his position
when he spoke of treason against the Uni
ted States as levying war against them-I
cannot quote his language, that is the idea
as if them" meant not any one of the
United States.


Mr., Douglas-Thc 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 subvert it without touching fede-
raj authority, is treason against the United


States; hold that that is treason against
the state of Virginia, to be 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 Uhion and
ought to be prevented; but resistance to
the state government connot be treason
against the United States. The forcible re-
sistance to the state government, which
arises under state laws and does not affect


federal authority, lapprehend, must be pun
ished under state authority, and not as
treason against the United States.


But, sir, | do not choose to go into this
argument. do not desire to occupy the
time Of those entitled to the flcor. One


word about my criticism upon the presi-
dent. expressly refused to interpret the


meaning of the president in his letter to the
governor Of Virginia, although my candid
opinion is that the fair reading justifies the


interference that he thought the constitu-


ton did not authorize congress to confer


the authority. He said that he was at a
+ loss to find any provision in the constitu.
ton or laws of the United States


Mr.. Davis-Which did what?


Mr.. Douglas-Wh would authorize
him to interfere for this purpose-take
steps for this purpose; that is, to preserve


peace between the states.


f Mr.. Davis-Not the congress.


Mr.. Douglas-He said he was unable to


find any provision in the constitution OF
laws. My impression was that he wished


to be understood as denying the power OF
congress; but inasmuch AS


MIR. Davis-Will the senator allow me to


show him the language? There it is, un.
derscored. Handing the senator paper.
Mr.. Douglass am at loss to discovery
, any provision in the constitution or laws Of
the United States which would authoriz,
me to take steps for this purpose.


Mr.. Davis-That is s'me."


Mr.. Douglas-"Me," of course. He did
not see anything in the constitution or in
| the law: say that that language may be
, susceptible Of two constructions. Inas


much as my object was not to make an issue
with him, but to demonstrate the powe,


and duty Of congress to furnish the legisla
| ton necessary fer the protection Of the
, states, expressly disclaimed constituting
= his language by saying that would mo-
{ inquire whether his meaning was to deny
3 the authority of congress, or to deny tht
existence of the legislation necessary fol
carrying out the clause Of the constitution
: If he believed that the constitution confer.
red the power, my argument showed, then
that | agreed with him. If he believed
t that there was no legislation authorizing


him to exercise the power, of my argument


showed that agreed with him on tina,
{ point. If he denied the power, my argu


ment showed that did not agree with hin
in the denial. But, sir, do not deem il
necessary for me, in the dis charge of my
duties here, to inquire whether every opin.
e ion express comes in contact with the


opinion of the President of the United
States or not. l statea fact to predicate my
argument upon. So far the president is


right, l will sustain him. When l think hs


is wrong, have shown willingness to op
pose him to the extent that thought he
was wrong. In this matter, have thought
that legislation was necessary and am
; willing to vote with all men who will fur.


nish the requisite Legislation to carry out
the provision of the constitution according


to its true intent and meaning.


TAn eccentric friend of ours stepped into
} q store in the village, which shall be nameless,
where some "colored brethren" were doing a
, little trading. All !Mr.-, said our friend,
"you have your cousins in see !" the young
merchant said nothing, but looked mad. Our
friend stepped out, but in q few moments re.
turned, after the sable customers mad depart
ed. hope you wont take any offence with
what remarked here just now, said he. Oh no
says the merchant, never take offence at any.