Year: 1860

was very different one; and l must have
been unfortunate, indeed, for the senator
to have misunderstood me- Ispoke of the
power he seemed to desire to confer upon
the executive to send into state to inquire
whether men were there, organized for ille-
gal purposes, and to invade the sovereignty
of state-nOt to prevent the invasion of a
state, but to invade the sovereignty of a
state-there to inquire whether illegal CON-
binations existed or not. made no objec-
tons to the judiciary. l should be sur
prised to learn that the judiciary, the grand
jury of the circuit court, or district court
Of the United States, could not take cogni-
zance of treason against the United States
overt acts such as the senator describes.


Mr.. Douglass should have been unfor-
tunate, indeed, if had left the slightest
reason for any one to suppose that pro-
posed to authorize the president, with the
army or the militia, to search for conspira-
cies and punish them in the states.


Mr.. Davis-Or the president with his
posse.


Mr.. Douglas-Any military authority
say l should have been unfortunate, in
deed, if had authorized from what said,
such an inference; but, sir, read my speech,
and there is no possibility of drawing such
an inference from it. said, expressly, my
object was to confer upon the judiciary the
power to suppress and punish the conspira-
cies and the combinations. That intent is
expressed on the face Of the resolution it.
self-to suppress and punish conspiracies
and combinations in any state or any terri
tory; and in my speech go on to explain
that the mode will be by indictment in the
United States courts, and conviction in
those courts, and confinement in the prison.
Hence, the senator could not have read nv
speech, or he never would have fallen into
the great error Of supposing that the con-
spiracies or the combinations were to be put
down by the military power.


But the senator now wants to know
whether or not, under the existing laws, the
United States courts have not the right to
punish treason against the United States ?
| take it for granted they have; but docs
this come within the purview of those laws ?
Treason against the United States is defined
in the constitution to be in the levying war
against them not the inroad of one state
to another state, but in levying war against
them-against the United States, against
the federal authority; the subverting of the
federal authority, or the invasion of the
United States from a foreign power, with q
view to subvert the United States, or rebel
lion in it in levying war to subvert the gov
ernmcnt and authority of the United States
| apprehend, sir, that the legislation in this
case is necessary to reach the conspiracies
OF one state against another; and | speci
lied clearly in my argument what those con
spiracies were-a conspiracy in one state tt
run Oft negroes or slaves from anothe,
state; or conspiracy in one state to rur
Oft horses or other property from another
| referred to the boasts of John Brown, in
a lecture in Cleveland last year, in which
he proclaimed to the world that he had o
body Of men organized for the purpose Of
stealing horses from the shareholders in Mis-
souri, and running them off for sale: anC
he pointed to the livery stables in Cleveland
where the horses were then exposed for sale
| spoke Of combinations and conspracies
with view to overpower the citizens of ;
state al the elections; to control their insti
tutions, or to subvert their government. O,
disturb their people, or their tranuuillitv ir
any way. These We're the classes of con
spiracies of which spoke, which do not
IN my opinion, come within the law in re
spect to treason, and which l proposed t,
provide for by law. l did not suppose tha
what | had said upon that subject could DOS
sibly be open to just criticism from an,
quarter. am certain that the senator from
Mississippi would not make that criticism
he had carefully read my speech, and see,
what my meaning was. | know it canno
be in the mind of that senator to put mar
in false position by a misconception O.
misstatcment of his position; his characte
forbids that; but still assert I was ex
ceedingly unfortunate if my whole train O
argument docs not exclude the conclusio,
he has drawn from it.


Mr.. Davis-I will not trespass lonpe
upon the time Of the senator from MasSa
chusetts, and am sorry to consume anoth
er moment Of it. l believe it will be recoo
nized, at least on this side of the chamber
that have done some good service thi
morning. l called the attention of the sen
ator from Illinois to the position which h
occupied in the first part of his speecl
which read; and he has explained it unit
| find that the senator from illinois and tn
president seem to concur exactly. The sen
ator from Illinois did not want the cxecu
tive to have the power to use the army an,
militia and the navy to 90 into the state t
discover whether there were illegal comb
nations there or not. That is the only poin
against which the president seemed to argue
AS to the rest, the president merely rcterre


to the law no: having conferred upon hir
the power; AID the senator says, certainl
the law did not. But the president did NO
say the law did not confer upon him tn
power, as far as he could, to preserve peac
by the exercise Of any powers which he dl
possess and thus he did exercise it by send
ing troops to Harper's Ferry to protect tn
public property there, and if need be to &C
as posse. | am very glad, therefore tha


| have got the senator and the president *
actly upon the same basis; and if the sena
tor had read little further in the letter G
the president, it would not have been neces
sary, perhaps, for me to have quoted tn
language which the senator employed il


connection with the very short cxtrac
which he made from the president to tn
governor Of Virginia.


But the senator has said some thing
which l will very briefly notice. He want
ed to know what it was that would con
slider trampling upon the rights of the states
and l told him and though he had sai'
much upon that subject, he went on to speal
of the invasion Of one state by another state
and the power not existing to punish unde
the judiciary. Has the senator forgotten
that the very purpose for which he aban
doned the contederacy and established tn
Union was to get government that woul,
act upon individuals and not states? Tn
confederacy attempted to act upon states
and it was complete failure. The wis
men of that day then formed governmen
which would act upon individuals; and thi.
general government has no power to lay it.
hands upon a statc-none. Why, then
talk about the judiciary not under existing
laws having the power to proceed agains