Year: 1860

says that If the courts make decisions whict


cannot be enforced without legislation, he i


Tor legislation. These gentlemen say tha


when the court does make decisions, they will


submit to them and carry them out. II seems


therefore, that they are travelling in lines thai


will converge and come together at a certain


point. Then, why dispute now in advance


This may be readily illustrated. Suppose


have controversy with neighbor about the


title to piece OF land. Neither of US is In a


hurry to have possession. We are willing to


await the decision OF the court He comes to


me, however, and says 81 find that the court,


IN expressing an opinion 10 another case, which


| admit is not like ours, and does not present


the same facts, has declared, nevertheless, that


IN case like yours and mine my title would


be gooe, and therefore wish you 10 give me a


deed acknowledging my title to be good, though


do not want possession now, and am willing


TO wait for it until the case decided" reply


to him, 81 admit that the court may have ex-
pressed such an opinion, but the point between


US did not arise in that case, was not argued by


my counsel or any other counsel all can say


10 you is, Ifthat be the opinion the court, of
course, when they decide our case, they will


decide IN yopr favor, and shall then Surren-


der to you ; but | am not willing to assume


beforehand that the court will SO decide" 1t


seems to me, then, Mr.. President, that in the


present condition of the case there is no neces-


Sty for ll-teeIiug on either side, or for decara-
| tions in advance.


My second point was, that New Mexico had
| already established slave code and given us
! more territory than We should have gotten un-
| der the Missouri line, If carried out. [ come
now to the third point, and that is, what has
grown out OF the decision Of the court in the
Dred Scott case. When this subject was un-
der debate in 1880. we of the South objected
TO non-lnterventlon on the ground that it would
leave the Mexican law in force and inas-
much as the Supreme Court had maintained
the opinion 10 a case from Florida, and per-
haps IN some other decisions, that where terrific
ry was acquired the local law might remain
in force, We were disinclined to tako non-in- |
terventlon without repeal of the Mexican |


law. During the interesting controversy, we
a caucus of southern members, consisting of |
Senators and Representatives, and on that occa-
sion the Senator from Georgia, who usually sits |
behind me, tMr. TooMBs,( introduced PROPOSE |
ton into our caucus that We would support the /
compromise measures if they would repeal the |
Mexican laws and substitute the British colo |
mai laws whrnh prevailed In our colonies prior
to the Revolution. That was adopted, and /
that gentleman moved it in the House of /
Representatives as an amendment, but It was
defeated. am free to say that if at that time
We had been satisfied that the court would hold
that under the Constitution slave property
could exist and be protected in the territories,
without reference TO local laws, | am very
~ Il 4
mise OF 1850.


If be true, as the Senator from Mississippi
contends, that the Dred Scott decision settles
the question and supports the right of slavehol-
der IN territory, then there is another strong
reason why We should acquiesce in non-inter-
venton at this time. This, therefore, is thrd
reason ;and now propose to give one or two
others why person like myself, who orlgi-
nally did not adopt it, may now be for it.


1t has been adopted as the policy of The couE- {;
try for ten years Can we now pass through
resolutions or bills to establish or protect slavery
in the territories That is the question. Re- {
collect, it is only in case where the people of
territory are hostile to our rights it is only I
where they are so hostile that they refuse to
protect us, or even legislate against us that we '
have been called upon to exercise this power. a
Nobody pretends that there is any necessity for !
our going into New Mexico, or other territories J
that are favorable to US, with this legisatlon.-
Therefore, the question presented is simply a
this suppose territory is hostile to US, and its
Legislature will not protect slsve property, or t
even legisIate against ii, will Congress inter- t
vene! First, is there any political possibility t
that We can pass such law through the two '
" how hoJ ~, Il
already. Here is the territory of Kansas, t
which not only does not give US any protec- i
lion, but which, am informed has egslated t
adversely. One Senator from Mississippi M.
BRowN) has brought forward proposition to a
interfere for the protection OF slavery IN that a
Territory, and yet he has not got one southern y
nan to break him and if you were to submit s
he question 10 body OF southern Senators a
have very great doubt whether you would get /
hem 10 agree to such legislation. Why is it v
If we OF the South are willing to impose the b
is the common phrase-on {
territory against the wish of majority, why is f
it that gentlemen do not come up and support y
the proposition ofthe Senator from Mississippi a
Is it because that it is politically and morally r
wrong to interfere in this way? Is that IT, or l.
is il because gentlemen know that such legisla- g
lion would be unavaillng? | ask why We have T
not induced southern Senators yet TO come up q
and vote for The establishment or protection OF 4
slavery IN Kansas, notwithstanding the adverse b
legislation OF the territorial authorities leave
every gentleman to give his own reasons. But v
suppose every southern Senator went for it, we
could NOT pass it ; and how many norther men Q
are there who are ready to vote for it 4? How a
many northern members ale there in the other T
House for it II will take thirty northern Re- c
presentatives to pass through such bill. We g
all know what a clamor was raised two or !
three years ago by the Abolitionists-falsely t