Newspaper Page Text
'f II M VERMONT l'llOIX Atn v k n m o x t n v. i' v n i, i v a x Is I'uiilMnd ev ry Balunlay Morning, ut nnATTt.r.nano, it Iiuci: Nil, ii (Iuaniii. I'iiw, Hwini.u.'s IIuick, TlillMti ft 6 tar year to kIhrIu sulpscrlla rs i (1.2a per y ir f.i clubs of '20 or morel In nil eases Cati in advancr. OIIAS. CUMNJINOS, PLiii.isnr.n. I'tiriilK TIIK VKItMONT I'lliKNIX Is font Into nil tli l .win nr Windham County free of Postage. To any pari lit lhl State nut nf this County, for 10 tenia per Jiar elm wh r. 20 cuts p.r jeir payments hi nil cases to be mado fii irterly In advance. TWIi.N I V.SIIVK.NTII VOLJtMli, BtXTH OF NP.WSblllr.S. LIST OK A OK NTS, t whom payments for Til I! VKItMONT PlItKMX, for 1850, In IV In mink1: ' t llruttlelmm, A llt'NKf.r'I'l PronUInc, C. W. BTK11. IttNrfi Dover, I.Y.MAN IlL'Ulli W. Dover, MM. It. JUN1..1) Dloimerstoii, 11. A KNinill'i Weil Duiillu.rMoii, H. V. WII7s)N tlr.irwn, HCN.I. V DC N t lilllf.ir.I, l:l,Mi:il MISJNl Uuliror.l Centre. 8. I.. fllll.l'.Y. flrccn lthcr, .1 JIIN II. WALK Hit Jamaica, tllllN KN0VI,TON Hall, ftv, jrUl'tlK.N NILKSt Wen lllllf.ix, A. II. TUCKKIl Srath Lin.lon.lerry. J. L. PIKIlCK Marlboro, W. W. IA NI1II1 Kayrttevlllo, .1. Ill SKLKr', Jll 1 Wllllaiusvlllo, 8MrKI, IIKOWNi Putney, WJI. IMl'llllTON 1 gallon's lllvcr, 0. W F.llllllltOTHKIl ( Cambrl.lireport, A. A. WV. MVN Somerset, tl. K. M011SK Mrnltnn, SIKI.N1N A, KNOWLTON t Townhen.l, O. lIUnT.UFIKI.I) West Towns'tend, F. If. MVU'tTllI Vernon, ADDISON WHIT 1 1 1! II t War.Uliori, HOLLAND PLIMPTON) W est Vt urds. I.irn, I.IKKIITV VIL0F.lt 8ulh War.M1.1ro, II. IV. Kin. D Ml 1 Westminster, II. C. I.ANKt Westmlnsltr West, II. W. UVMIll.INi Vtlillliutliam, II, N. 1IIX .tailsnivtllle, 1',. p. Iliri'HOOCKt Wilmington. OIIKI1N SMITH I Windham, Wtl IIAHIUS, .111,1 South Windham, K.lt v PIKItOI',, Jlt.i Clicst.rnel.l, N. 11., II. 0. COOLIDOK) lllnsl.iio, N. II., C. .1. AMI DON 1 Winchester, N. II., II. M. 10111111 North llernirilton,Mi.,X. P. CIIAI'IN. NUSINESS CAHDS. mkmcax housk, lmArn.Kiiono, v 1 r. it. aiio.urso., rnoriutTuK. A LKXAXDEU H. 1'IKK. Manufacturer of 1' it'ttt TArm Cite. HUM 0 Lurutrt-r in.ule out fitted and fttrniihed in (inter. 100 000 ret or Chipboards and 100,000 feet of other lumiter on hand. Address Wh WariUbonr, Vt. AG. NOUKSE, Manufacturer of and Dealer In Si.fio, Itoors and Minds. 1'ealer In l.mntiT. I'lmiiii, Joint In?, Matcuti.fr, Scroll Sitting, ami nil kin U f I'.nu'l AV'ork, prtnnptly cxi'cutcd In a sui't-Tlor nmn ner. Kir it U.iorof Katvy & tlrepnlmUJlnItratlUlioro, t. AT"" IKMVK'S "Viciiire" Gallery t).ijUcrrontyi.e, Ambrolype, Pilai-cotyon l'hnlo RrnplH. I'lotitrci n:..lt) at this tst.iMliltnicut arc inuunted liy thtiillUVrenttarnfff nicthuU ami urc vrniruiitpl to itand the test of lime anil cllmitc. HratLtelMiro, t. ILLIAUiTTl A l7u"crrixiiVrHi7K'K, Uppulila llevero Homo, IlltATTI.KItOltO, T. WlimnPa Celehruteil Slate an 1 Wtnnl lleil Tanltf, Ith the New Myle Cushion. O' Cluacil at 10 P. 31. TpUADLKY & KELI.OGO, Attorneys nnd .1 J Counsellors at Law nn.l Solicitors In Chaneery. Ofllce opposite the Ilratllehorn House, Ilrntttlelx.ro, V t. J. D. Urailloy. deo. 1). Kellogg. UTI.EH & WHUKI.Klt, Attneys and uounseuors at t.:r.r aau aoncitora in vn irecry. JAMAICA, VI. J. 13. Duller. II. II. Vt heeler. CUIARLES ClIAl'IX, AUCTIOXKKn & A pent to nt'tl Heal llstMe. Applications from this nnd nclnhborltiR town will be attended to at short notice and on favorable terms. Ilrattleboro, March 1, 1350. 9 CAV. GllAU, M D . i ami Hydropatlilo I'liyslulaa. Ofllce at his residence In Urecn Streit. llomeonatli- C W. HOIITON, M. 1)., 1'h.vsi- clan anil Surgeon, Xo. 3 lltaVc's Dullitinir, DltATTLKIIOUO, VT. DA N I H L K K IiliOOO, Attokni.v anu Coumetlor at Law, Removed from daxtoii' ltlvtr to Itrattleboro. Bj" OMce over the tS.wlnga1 Dank. D WEXPOItT & UASK1XS, Attorneys uitu vuuuscnura at uw una ooiiciurs in L,iiaiK?ry, C. X. DATESPOBT, K. IIl-KIS. E j .utinuiiij, a., iiti.Miitit'ATiiii; ruv ll, sicus .t SraaEos. Office at P. S.JOY'S 1.1 Illch-St. ifnnniTT r i it n Ulllce hours from 11 to 12 A. M., and from 1 to 3 P. .M. C 11 0 S ) Y , Dealkh 7n1'iToiji Meal, Grain ami Pcel. PrtKluce lHtuplil an.l sol.l on Commission. No. 3 Make's Mock, 11KATTLKI10UO, VT. E. J. CAltl'KNTEK, 1)i:ai.i:ii i.v i Tots. Fancy (loodi. Uooks. Stationery. New na tier i. jiiiK-iiiiies ami rcrionicais. . Sub-crlptlun3 received for the I'rlnclp.l NcurspajH'ra and Magailnca, nntl f.rwarded r Mall nr nti.-iu-, 171 M . V O It 11 E S , Attohnka liAVD COCS8FLLOR IT LAV AMI NoTART I'tllUC, WIXCIUTKH, N. II. At so, Agent for the Atlantic and Uocklngli.iin Mutual lire Insurance Companlci, 1 J. 1IIGGIXSON, M. 1)., 1'IIYMCIAN- AND . . Surgeon, Orcen Street. UltATTI.KDOKO. GEOHGE HOWE, Attorney & Counc11or at Lair, and solicitor aad Master In Chancery, JlItATTLKUOKO, VT. G( V. GAIjE, Surgeon nml Vhysieiaii P. Office No. 5 lirtck Ho', directly opjio<e Ilrtittleboro House, lir.UUclwro, W. KcslUence, KIHot St., 3.1 iloor West Itcvere House. HEUSTIS & IlUUXAl', IIitNt:is Trunk, Valise auu Collar yiatiufaclurirsaml Carriage TrnumTS. Repairing articles In the abo-e business puurtunlly atteiMl oi to. MaluSt., upjoite Alntrleau House, lilt ATTLKIIOItO, A T. J. P. Heustis. J. W. llurnap. X. II IX, Attorney and Counsellor at uivr ana &onctir in inancerv, n JllllAllJlAM UlMItli, VI, T X. TIIOHX, )kl'ggist Arorm:- X ciar. opposite the L'oat OQice, llliATTLKIlOUO, A T. TOIIX M. COMEGYS, of Hiurrmiono, f) Inserts Upper and Under &ets of Teth on tJci d 1'l.ite, J0 carats fine and baxded, for- ... - $75 Thf a.vmo without hand, - ... CO Upper tiit, iMiided, 4D Upper Set, without hand, Cu Upinr and Under Sets, I'ltitlua 1'l.ite, Cuntlnuous Gum, To Upper Set, I'l.itlnd t'late, Continuum Gum, 3S Upper and Under Bet, Itubber, - V) Upper Set, Rubber, ----- '-!.' Upper and UnderSet, Silver, ... - 25 Uiir Set. Silver. .------16 fTT-GUM TKKTII alr.iysuBed. FILLING WIT 1 GOLD, nnly GOcenUacavlty. KX'l'RACTING with CHLOROFORM mi'i J-iiiiLTJ uiuiri ah le.irk- warranun. liratUeboro, Mvc. 10, 18i. 51 J P. AVAltHKX, 1. J)., I'livsiuwN and Surgeon. Removed Irom J'ai ttt- flff.J Oiltce ni his resmemc ftrmeriy otiuphM y uiu ute j, u, .nnr. idiy, So. U High street llrattkboro, t. JOSElII STEEX, lioolieller, l'liblihernnU Stationer, corner of Main and IIIL &ts , Uruttkboro,Yt. J ii. . ii. lio rmiiiuwuK, Manufacturerri and liealcm In Kmplre State, Vletor, SLuwsiit'i and Gen'.'see Valley Uookt5tovt( I'arlor and Jlox Stovei nnd Hot Air Furnace. Aloot I'lows, Cultlvalr-rs, Uoad Scrnpers, Churns, Iron Sinks, Russia and liuglUh Stove Pipe, am' all kind of Stove f urniture, japan anu umnimm iin it are. No. 1 Kichanse Jllock, URA'lTLKIlORO, VT T7-ATIIAX & UKIGGS, Dealers in nil kinds I.V. ' M'irljle, bhtte, bnap-toue, sc. tC7"Shoi near the itilirj ia fjeosnos opjosuc uroiuy uo.'s tiour .mil, UUATTLUJtOno, T. LG. MEAD, Attorney ami Counsellor at L ive, irctleiiig In the Court t,t Vinnont uhd New II unpshlri't A OEM of Tli r jJj'IWA Fire lnumnrt Comn nv, ind Windham County Mutual lo. Also, Agv at to pro run) Pensions, and Rounty IjiikI. t'oiuail-sthmcr for tlio BtatiMof New Vortt and New lUmpiibhf, California and Notary I'ublic. TVrOKSE & NASH'S Iivery Stable, Lt 1 In the rear of the UratUeboro Iiouuc, SUmfctiett, Uratileboro, Yt. TOST & l'EAKSOX, Ulntists, 1 pay particular attention to the preservation of the natural Teeth. Aim, lmert TcUli on G Vd, I'latlna, Ruhbtr or Sllrer (Mate, use Kk'Ctrlclty hi cxtraellu teilh,and trtat IrrepiUritles tu Children's Teeth successfully, O.lica and Resldenco nearly opposite the Congregatloual CI lurch former residence of the late G, C. Hai i., HRATrLKIlOltn, Vt. ii, IX, I'OiT I I'rAnioi. PSIMOXDS, Mamifactiiwr mul Dealer . In I.a.lles, Mlisei'.CIill.licii'siin.I iloj's llnuta,Miia Ualti-ra au I llubhert, opp. the Post OIHoc, Jlalu-tt., lir.utlv lo.ro, Yt. EEV. ADDISON llltO.VK i teuehei private pupils lit Ms Home on Cliaeeftio t. SS. JOY, Homeop.ilhic Veterinary Surgao.i, 111 ultim I to all cast s of Wliaccs of Horses. II iiiso on Wnlnut Stret, DrattMro, V t. s. I' . V Ii AGO, Attounhv at Law, Office No. 13 West Main Street, WII.MINOTON, VT. TyO()l)COCK V1XTOX, l'siper lami- II facturers. All Muds of Printing PajKi' made to or. rUr, (!ash paid for W kite ami Dron 11 Hags. Urattlthoro, "V7"M. S. HO U OUT OX, Harness, I I Trunk and Vatlse Manufacturer, and Cnirlage Trim mer, I'L'TNISY, VT. I Ik VOL. XXVII. Sl'llKCIl OF HON. J. C0LI.AMKR, OF VER MONT, ON SLAVnilY IN T1IK TE1UII- I T0H1ES. j Drlltrreil lit Hie Srimlr ul llir Unllcil Slntex, Miirrli H, IHOO. Tlio Sennto liavinir icsmnod tlio consideration of tlio fullowitiK resolutions, submitted by Sir Ilrown on tlio 18th of January: lhwhctU That the Tenllnrlcn nro tho conitnon liropcitv nf nil tlio Slutc. mul Unit It is llm nnvlloso tf tho elll.ein r)f nil the SIiiIch to go Into tlio Trrr!tt- rics with every Klinl nr ilcerlptIon ot irnit.rty lecnp nl.cl by tlio Constitution of tlio Uintuu Slutca nml liel.l unilcr tlio laws or any of the .State., and Unit it Is tlu eoriMittttlotuil dutv ef tlio I.tw-inakinjt power, wherever lodged, and by whomsoever e.xereied, v hrthcr by tho Conpre or the Tciritorlal I.eftisiature, to enact fiieh law as m:iv he found iiecenrv for tiie ndeiiinte and rullleieut proteetlnn of mob property. 7i'uoi'i., '1 tint tho Oonuiiittec on Territorif bo'ln tiucted to Insert, tu any bill they may report fur tlio orpuilzitinti of the Terrllorlex, it cl.iuo deelarlns it to ou tho iluty ol the lemtorinl I,elluliii'o to eiinet adcqualo nnd rulllelent laws fur tho piuleethm of nil kinds of property, n ahoo described, within tlio lim its of tho Territory, mid that, upon its failure or refus al to do so, it Is the admitted duly of CungrcM to In terpose and pass such laws. The iiucstion is on the amendment of Mr Wilkin son, to strike out all alter the word "rcstltcd," where It first occurs, and insert tlio following: i hut tho Territories arc tho common nroneitvof tlio eie of the t'niled State.) that Congress l"in lull power nnu auutoiny 10 pass nil laws necessary ami proper for tiie pournment of mcli Ten hones'; ami that, in the cxirci.se of such pov.-er, it Is tlio duty of Congress so to logiKto in relation to slavery tlu u in that tin" Interests of free labor may be eneouiiiged and protocteu in sucii icmtories. JUtitlrtil. Tli.it tlio Committeo on Territories be in structed to insert in nnv bill tliev mnv renort fur the organization of new T ertltories a clause declaring that ineie snail no neitiicr slavery imr Imoluntary wrvi tudo in such Tenitoiios, except in punishment for iiiuo wucreoi me puny lias oeeu iiuiy eouleieil. Mr CoLLAMKtt. Mr President, tlio resolutions under consideration relate to tlio condition of slav ery in the Tcriitorics, and propose to provide leg isl ttion in relation to that subject, especially legis lation to protect and prcseno It there. '1 lie dis cussion on this subject, as it was begun and lias gone on in tlio Senate during the progress in this sesbion, lias taken a very wide range. I have no fault'to And with that; but it seems to me, after all, that we might bring ourselves a littlo neater to some practical application of principles. When we consider the condition of our country I mean tho wholo country the condition ot society which exists in It, and tiie adaptation of our measures to that condition of society, wo may bring ourselves to the practical application of seme important nriu- ciples. ?ow, what is the state of society hero? Take our nation, for which we legislate, the whole of which is a proper subject of our consideration, tho whole of which is to be considered iu nicasuriim out our different degrees of policy, nnd the meas ures) calculated to ailvanco Its interests. No legis lation can bo valuable, unless upon the whole it Is an advantage to the country for which it is made, and wo must consider the actual condition of that country at the time, in order to eee tlio practical application ot tuc measures wo aro noout to pur sue. We have, it seems, Mr President, two conditions of society existing in this country that existing in tne siavclioliling Males ami that existing in the non-slavcholding States, which I. for brevity, shall call, as they aro usually called, the ficc Slates. 1110 conuuion ot society in the free States, which include, in round numbers, about two-thirds of the inhabitants of this country, is bused on this idea, that all men are to 1k educated: that there is to be a universal suffrage; that men arc to be edu cated with a view to discharge this duty nnd priv ilege of suffrage. When our fathers at thcllist entered upon this exiieiimcnt at fn tt in New laig- loitil nit flin nr.1t.n. wl.ll. 1.1,1 1 ft. .in.. In other regions of tho world, tu relation to land lore. and tenant, lonl and vassal, patrician and plebeian, master and slave, ncro entirely to bo obliterated. and all the notions which had prevailed, too, of primogeniture and of entail, and everything that was calculated to pcrpctuata those distinctions in society, were to be done away with. In short, they proposed, and the idea they entertained wa, to en ter uuon an cxiicriment ot a Irec and equal sytem of republican government; that every man should own the land he cultivates, and every man tdiould cultivate the laud ho owns; that there should be none to rule and none to serve; that every man should serve himself, and then lie of course would have a faithful servant. That system is not merely ideal. It practically prevails through the largo body of the Irte States not so much in the cities, not so entirely in the more densely lwpulated region: but such is tho actual condition of the laudhoiding part of the people ot tlio lieo stales. I will not spend lime to chiliorate this system any more. I do not proiae now, or at any other time In the courso ot my re marks, to bay anything to commend it particulatly to the acceptance of any one. I simply with to state it, and bt icily to describe it, and there rest in relation to that. The other condition of society, existing in the slaveholding State of this Union, I would rather cito as described by another, than undertake to do it myself.' Mr Calhoun, in 1837, said: '.Many in tlio South onco l.l!cvcd that it tslavery) was a iiiornl and political evil; tli.it follv and ih'liision are gone. We see it now in its tiue h;:ht, ami tvgard it a a most safe and stable bn-'w for lieo itiMittitioiis in lite woild. ' The Nmthem t.tut.-s. tire an aggiegnte, in tact, of communities, not of iiniivinunls. I.very plantation i u little eouiiiiiinily, with tho mas ter ut its head, w-iio roiveutrates in himself the united interests nf capital nmt labor, of which tie is the com mon lepii'scnlative. The small eonitnunit.es n;'gr(.. gated make the State, in all u huso action, nlxir nnd tapital aro equally represented and i-crfoetly harmon ized." I am not about to make any remarks in relation to the question of whether tlua is n demmblcor un desirable comlitiou. 1 tiuiply deu e unelly to elab orate a littlo what Mr Calhoun here says of it. 1'ioni these remarks, two things are quite obvious, Iu tho fntt place, it is obvious that is an aristocra cy. He tays that these communities, of wide i tl.e master or owner is tho head, aggtegated, mako tho State, and tho owner is tho reprcstnl.itivo tf these separate communities. That meets my idea of nothing more nor less than nn aristocracy. I do not say that this condition of things is censurable. I do not use tho word "aristocracy" iu nny bnd sense. I say It Is simply that Another thing, which is pcrhops but an ingredient '"e Irfct. is. that tho mass of the coinuiuuity I do not speak now ol tho Blaves are, In ellect, practically Ig norcd. Tho masters leprcscutiug, as Mr Callioun says, theso separate, communities, make the Mate and, as tho teprescntalives of the labor and prop erty of which they ure inatttTs and owners, they of com te guide tlio State, and hence, ho says, there comes to bo no collision. Wc all understand that a largo majority of the southern jieoplc aro not slaveholders, and tncy never win oe prouaniy. Of course, according to his own statement, they aro essentially left out of the account. These two condition! of society, Inasmuch as tliev are both iu existence In our country, and no doubt will lc during our lives, and probably for centuries to conic, present to us a problem to solve; and the question is, what is our duty here, for this body is thu lepresentatlvo ct theso two Interests, I tegatd it as tho duty of Congres, eo far as tlio powcisj which have been delegated to it will enable It to do, to endeavor to protnoto and advaueo tho prosperity of all purls of this country; of both theso sections, if you call them sections; of both thews conditions of society. That may be very difficult problem; but the mora difficult it is, the more wo should bo willing to grasp it, meet it, do our duty iu relation to It. I think wo ure not at libeitv to set aside anv one put af our country, or hiiv otio of these conditions of oeicly, ou tlio eiuiiiid that wo ctunot exactly iceoncilo Its pi'ni loin.', lis interests, lis duties, with tliou of the other. That uioblem is nut Into our hands In the foi tuition of our Gov eminent, in the existence of this fiovcrnincut, aud we cannot uo our duly it wo avoid it. It is. I tsav. Mr President, net nn easy task to shape tho policy of this Government, to order tho forms of our commercial intercouise, h) lay our duties and taxes, to framo all our laws in such ft manner as shall best promote the advnutagc of the whole of this people, and both or tneso classes, anu this whole community. It may lie true, nt times, that we shall find tho Intetcslsof one pint conllict Ing in lomo degree; with the interests of another part, nnd tlicreforo it is that tl") problem may be iiermcmt difficult of solution, ptnctlcally In our hands; but It is nevertheless the problem put Into our hands. It Is to that wo must address ourselves. It Is that wo must pet form ns far as wo can, nnd ns much ns iu us lies. The fust thing that occurs to my mind is this question: is It ntall probable that wc can, either of us, Induce tlio other to adopt our system of so ciety? Argue it ns long as wu pleise, spend as much of our time and breath nbout it ns wo may, In commendation of tho respectivo systems which wo reprcscut, and to which wc belong, after all, I believe tlieic Is very littlo reason to suppose that In this Hall one party will be able to Induoo the oilier to ndopt lis system. It Is not very likely, it Is not very probable. Whenever tho cystem of either parly Is attacked, and lis vvetkneses at tempted to bo exposed, each may stand on the de fensive, nnd that is well enough, if so be that it is conducted In nn appropriate spirit, nnd with that cotulcsy and urbanity which should Lccoinc tho places that wo occupy In this, which ought to be regarded ns nn nugust body. It will baldly do to say that these two conditions of society cannot exist in tho same nation. There is n co-existence in the same nation. There is nn other kind of co-cxlstcnco In the samo municipal government. They arc not the samo thing. I fancy that, after an experiment of eighty years or more, we may at least siy that they can exist, nnd prosperously, too, in the same nation. The lesson of our own experience teaches us much ns that these two conditions can exist, nnd exist prosper ously, In the tame nation. Hut when uc say that, j we. should recollect that the word "nation," ns np-' plied to n people like ours, is n term comi?cd of . nn nggiegato of separate nations, in one sense sep-. mate soveiclgntlcs; nnd nil the interti ll nnd mil-' nieipil legulations to which the con lition of socie ty belongs, fill appropriately and exclusively with in the jurisdiction of tho local authorities of the Sovereign Slates. I Then there may bo a well-shaped and well-con- j ducted nation, with ono condition of society, in ono municipality, and nnotlujrln another State. They j may both lo prosperous within the same nation; but, after all, they cannot co-exist in the same mu- j nicip.il government. That is n mere truism, per haps. It requites one simply to state it to appie hend it. I say a State cannot be a non-slavcbold- j ing State nt the same time; nnd I may say, I may ndd with equal truth, that 1 think our experience j shows us that, under a territorial government, n Tcnitory cannot be at the same tlmo a slavehold- ing and a free Territory. I believe that experi- ment has been attempted, nud it is a failuie; tho tiling cannot be. It would seem to be v cry obv ions on mo mere statement, it would involve a para dox. Well, now, sir, what shall we do with this coun try, having these two conditions of society spread over it nnd existing in it ? What is our duty iu relation to tho matter? Wc have no quarrel or i difficulty in relation to slavery, so far ns it exists w ithjti the separate States. It exists under the op- I oration nnd protection of the governments of thoc j separate States, peaceably and quietly. Hut the 1 question arises, what shall we do In relation to it when we come to the territory which lies out of nnd beyond tho jurisdiction of the several Plates ? ; c must, keep the peace about it; it must be ar- ' ranged in some way. What cau wc do with it f - How can we get along with it, quietly nnd pcacca- i bly ? I think we, like nny other people, might bo enabled, if wo were so inclined, to draw oinc les- sdlis of advantage from our own experience, nnd from tlio history of our own country. We nro apt to forget, iu the hurry of new nnd untried experi ments, that after nil, experience is the safest guide forto-dayandthesafestguidefurtruth. Wctpeak of our fathers they who established this Govern- ment. How-did they manago It? Is it not well i enough for us occasionally to look nt the old way, nnd nsccrtain how it was ? The further wc get in- i to difficulty, the more troubles wccxpcricnco in trying new moles and new experimeuts, the lnoro wc ought to be inclined to sec bow this matter was managed originally, nnd how that management a. .1 ii - i, i i t.t-u H-ui-n u. more clear, ou a candid examination, than that they looked upon slav cry as a great evil. So ad mits Mr Calhoun himself; undoubtedly it was true. No man disputes that now. How did they propose to manage it ? It was in this way: tho old Con gress of the Confederation was sitting at the time the convention was sitting in Philadelphia. In that Confederation CongrV-s they acted in relation to the then known aud then owned territory of the United States, lying out of nnd beyond the limits of the separate States; and. In providing a Gov ernment fur it, enacted that slavery or Involuntary servitude, except fur crime, should not there exist; it was entirely forbidden. That provision was 1 lt 1 ... .ir;.i .!. usuoei uui uiui uuij nuiilil-1 to 1110 cuiiveuiiou that was sitting to form the Constitution; sitting j colemporaneously. They understood that, and It was iu no way disapproved by tbeni. They provid ed iu the Constitution that Congress should have power "to make nil needful rules nnd regulations" i'ur tho disposition of the territory nnd other prop- j city of the United Stales; thus bestowing on thej new proposed Government the power of control ! over the Territories, and they immediately exer cised it iu the First Cutigrc's, by legitimating and adapting the provisions of the ordinance of 17b" to the then existing form of government. There was nnother thlug. They did not look upon slavery tl.cn ns n mere local matter a mat ter of mere local interest. Tho nation provided for the Northwest Tcnitory; but that was not nil. It wa3 then undoubtedly the general prevailing opinion that If they cut off' the supply of slaves by prohibiting the African slavo trade, and limited the extent of territory iu which slavery should ex ist, by confining it to its then existing limits, it would finally die out. There is no doubt that they entered upon that experiment. They vested In Congress tlio power, after 1S0S, to which time the extiemc Southern Stntes then desired to continue tho trade, to cut off that foieign supply to cut off the African slave trade; nnd they had in the ordinance of 17b7, the continuance of which the new Constitution contemplated, n provision for limiting tho extent of territory in which It should picvail. I have been charged over nnd over I can re member nt least three times, by three different gentlemen iu the Senate, In the progress of tills discussion with having said, which was true, that I believedlho moro limited tho extent of territory to which slavery was confined, tho sooner it would come to an end. The honorable Senator from Al abama, (Mr Clay.) tho honorablo Senator from Noilh Carolina, (Mr Clingman,) and, I believe, other gentlemen, have seemed to think that, in ap proving of that sentiment, I am an Abolitionist; nnd ono Seuator says that is nothing mora nor less than a plan to smoko than) out not a very elegant cxptessloii. Have I entertained any new thought on that subject? I dcsiic to call attention for ono moment to ft single remark made by tho Senator from Virginia at this session, Mr Mason said, on the 23d of January, speaking of those who mado the Constitution: , "I bellevo this was their opinion: their prejudico was ninicd against tlio foreign slavo trade, tho African slave trade, and their belief wn, that by rutting that oil", slavery would dio out of iUelf, without nny net of abolition. I attempted nt una timo to show, 'by tho recorded opinions of Mr Madison, thnt tlio fam. lis or dinance of 1787, so far as It prohibited slavery in Hie territory northwest of tho Ohio, was aimed at tho Af rican shivo trade, and aimed ntthntnlonc: the idea being that If they could restrict the area into which slaveiy coultl bo Introduced from nhroad, they would, to that extent, prevent die Importation of slaves; nml that, when it win altogether prevented, tho condition of slavery would die out of Itself; but they were not Abolitionist., far less within the meaning and spirit o( tiie Abolitioni-t of tlio present day." That Is the view I wish to present, In shorter words. They entertained the idea that If the na tion would cut off tho foreign supply, nnd would limit tho area into which slavery was to go, it would dio out. I am not now proposing to say how far Ibis idea of thclis was correct; but I must say that I haro a strong desiro to play out that play. Let us go ou nnd carry through the experi ment on which tills government was founded; be eauu it was under this Idea In tho met Idhn blaze of thl. idea that our Constitution was framed. It was framed by men who entertained this thought, and It was frauicd for tho purpose of carrying It nut. Hcnco it was that tho power to cut off tho fotelgn supply was vested In Congress, and tho limitation in the Territories was done iu the old! nanco approved by Congress, Mr Preildoiit, is tlicro nny thing new in tho Idea which now constitutes tho leading feature of tho Republican platform that is, keeping slavery out of tho Territories, nnd keeping tho foreign supply btlll cut off ? Ono would suppose, who hail conio to this body for the last two or three months, that BUATTI.EBORO, YT.: APRIL 7, 1800. somehow or other this sentiment, this principle, this proposed object, was n new nml unheard of aggression that was utterly uncxnmplcd ; that there was no precedent for It in the Government; that It called upon nil men, everywhere, to raise their voices In utter execration of the whole of It; nnd wo haVe been called upon, from day to day, Instead of proposing to carry out this principle, to disband utterly, tlnow down our arms, and dis perse, as the ifnglish said to our f ithers upon tho field of Lexington. Sir, there is nothing In it nt nil. It was the very framework, it constituted tho great especial element of the Constitution; it was otic of the great leading purposes of It formation. Gentlemen have wandered so far and so fist from this principle, nmld the variety of dogmas now set up, ono of them being parent to tho other, they have mado so largo n departure, that when tliey come to look at tine thing In its modern aspect, men nic stat tied at it, because it does violence to their newly-Invented dogmas, not because there Is any thing new or strange in It. Hut, Mr President, wo ncqulred other nnd fur ther tcnitory than wliat wnsowned nt the time the Constitution wns formed. Wcdid not nt that time, if you pleitsc, properly own that part of the coun try which now makes Mississippi and Alabama, It belonged to Georgia. Our people chimed It claimed that the title to a large part of it, at least, was in the United Stall s, nnd not in Georgia. That was not merely tho part ceded by Soutli Cniolina. Theiewasaiiothersmall piece; which was, tho dlf fcicncc of the line of l loridi us made by the Hritish treaty, nnd ns practically run. How did the United States nrrange tho matter w lien they ncquiied mote territory that patt which they got from North Carolina which makes Tennessee, nnd that part which they obtained from France the Louisiana purchase? Huw did they manage under this same Constitution Iu relation to the subject of slavery in that country ? I hail occasion to exam ine, witli some care, this very question some time since, and I presented it iu as brief words as I could in the leport which I made in 185G, in 1 ela tion to the Knnsas difficulties. As I said then, I ilesito to Inquiic whit our Government did in re lation to that, fur two purposes: iu the first piece, to show what power they exercised it will clearly show us what jiowcr they understood themselves tu pofes; nud not nnly so, but the manner in which they executed that power, so as clearly to show us their purposes. What did they do ? I gnnt to the Senator from Georgia, for I believe be has called our attention two or three times this session to the net of 17'JS, that it is not tiue that Cougrtss always prohiMtcd slavery in the Territciies; not that they h id not the power to do It, but because of its iiicxpcdinicy, The true gioutid on which they went, the rule they followed, was Ibis, though somen hit modified in Mississippi and Orleans Tcrritoiles, suffered to remain. 1 he l id that it had been taken there and existed thero was deemed an indication of its adaptation nnd loetl utility. When slavery did not In fact exist to nny appreciable extent, it was by Congress cxpressly'prohibited.so that in cither case, tho country tettled up without any dificulty or doubt ns to the character of its institutions. In no instance was this difficult or disturbing ques tion left to the people who might settle in the Ter ritories, to be there an cvcrlisling bono of conten tion ns long ns the territorial government existed. It was rogvrdod os a subject in which the whole country had nu interest, and tlicreforo improper for local legislation, Tu illustrate this, I will not go on with the his tory of governmental action from time to time, as Congress made different territorial governments iu the country northwest of the Ohio. I need not show how they continued to rcteat over nnd over again tho utter prohibition of slavery; but I will call attention to the net which has been remarked upon by the Senator from Georgia, iu relation to Mississippi. As to Tennessee, wo all know that North Carolina, in miking the cession of the ter ritory to the United States, prohibited them from duing anything tending to the nbolitiuu of slavery. In telaliou to Mississippi, I do not understand the --.! ' as tho gentleman Trnm Georgia presents it. The ..,,, , Unm-l Statin claimed n large put of that country, now forming Alabama and Mississippi, and Georgia claimed nearly the whole of it. hen the Missis sippi tciritoiial act was passed, in lT'.iS, it was formed in anticipation of, and it appointed a way of fixing commissioners for, the settlement of that dispute with Georgia. Tho teiritory was. settled, as far as it was uttled, witli slaveholders nnd slaves. It was expected tint Georgia, in making her cession, would do as North Carolina had done in relation to Tennessee. Tint territorial net of 17'.'8 remained uucxccutcd until lbOH. In 1S0J. the comissioncrs of Georgia made settlement with the United States, nnd then the United Stales agreed to piy Georgia SI, '-'u' 1,000, for which she qiilt-elain.el all her light, claim, and title, with certain reservations; and, amongst other tilings, she put in ft clause forbidding the extension of tho anti-slavery clause of the ordinance of I7S7 over that territory. They mado their grant on tli.it condition. What docs that show ? Tho Senator from Geor gia says: "In 17ne, when C.ngre legishtcd in relation to MiMi ippi Territory, they did no: prohibit slaverv." No, sir, it was already theic; actually establish ed, and it was expected that Georgia would insist on keeping it there, and she did insist on keeping it there, liut that was not all. The United Stales then, in that very act, prohibited the importation of slaves from abroad, though they could not pro hibit it In the rest of the United States until ltsUS. lly what power did Congress do that ? Certainly they received no iHiwcr for it from the provision of the Constitution tint "the migration or importa tion of such persons as any of tho States now ex isting shall think proper to admit shall not he pro hibited by Con -less prior to the year 1SUS." That did not glvo them nny power about it except to prohibit it in nil tho States after 1M18; but they did proceed to prohibit the iutioduction of slaves into the Mississippi Territory lu 1708. Why? Simply fur the same reason tint they did the rest: they considered themselves as possessing thepowcr, iu framing territorial governments, to frame them ill such ft way, and with such prohibitions and con ditions, ns they thought would best promote the interests of the nation. They derived the power, no doubt, nt tint time, from that clause of tho Constitution called the teriitoiial clause, by which they weic empowered tu make all needful rules nnd regulations tor the Territories. None other can be found. There cannot be found ft clause In tho Constitution which give them the power, unless it was that. I know that It Is said, with regard to Louisiana and otner acquisitions obtained by trea ty with foreign nations, Inasmuch ns they have power to acquire, they have tho necessarily inci dental power to govern; but that cannot npply to Mississippi. It was not acquired by treaty Irom n foreign nation nt all. They exercised tho power theio under the territorial clause. Again, when our country mado the Louisiana puiclia.se from France, in tlio first net forming tho territorial government of Orleans Territory, now Louisiana, which was in 180S or lbOd, Congress did not prohibit slavery; becauso'it was already thero, and because t was adapted to tho country, I suppose they thought. They suffered It, but they did not leave it so. They provided that no slaves should go in there except in families for settlement ; and in tho next pi ice, they provided that no slave should bo taken in theic in nny way that had been Imported Into the United Slatei after 17H8 Why 17UH? In 1708 tfcey passed tho Mississippi net prohibiting tlio Importation of slaves from nbi old into Mississippi. They toon learned that it afforded very Utile secuilty to keep out Impotted slaves from Mississippi, when they could be im ported into Georgia nnd taken over into Mississippi. Congress, therefore, provided, in the act for Or leans Territory, that no slavo should bo taken iu there In nny way, in families or In nny other way, that had been imported after 1708. Now, I would ask, did not tho peoplo cf South Carolina, or Geor gia, or nny other slavcholdlng State nnd a great many of thcin wcro such nt that tlmo own their slaves which they had Imported from Africa In 1800, nud 1801, and 1802, nnd 180!). just ns they owned any oilier slaves they held ? If nny of them were propeity, wcienot thoso slaves property ?--Clearly tliey were. Well, then, how did Congress have a right to prohibit their taking them into Louisiana? They did exercise tho power, and no man doubted it. It icmalncd fifty yents, and no man questioned it, It is unnccessaiy, in order to show what was-thc power, as then understood by them, that they should, on all occasions, have prohibited slavery entirely. The fact that they did not do that does net show that they had not the power to do it. No, Mr President, a power to regulate is a power to prohibit. Nothing is more fully settled, for In stance, than that tho power to regulate commerce Is ft power to prohibit commerce altogether, ns wns fully settled lu relation to the embargo. Congress did regulate this matter In tho Territories precisely ns tliey pleased. If thccotemporancotiscxposltlon, if tho usages and practices, under tho Government, by thoso who made It, and, immediately nftcr lis formation, continued nnd persisted In, uniform in lis opc.ntlon, can provo anything nnd it seems to mo the best possible proof, when nny doubt exists ns to the construction of a paper then, I say, it Is clear Congress had nud exercised the power, both In tho territory tliey owned nt tho timo tho Constitution wns adopted, nnd iu that which they acquired aftcrwatds, either from any of tho con federated Stales, or from a foreign country, They exercised this power of regulating, curtailing-, or prohibiting, as tliey in their judgment believed lo be the best for the country. Such is the lesson of our experience as to how this matter was otlginatly settled. In tho prog rcss of affairs, and in thus arranging for tho Ter ritories and settling them peace ibly, they brought up State after Stato In perfect peaco nnd success nnd prosperity until, I believe, fourteen States had been admitted out of thoso Territories, one-half slave nnd one-half fieo ; they had grown up, un der this patronage nnd this administration of tho General Government, In the full exercise of this jmwer. Iu the progress of this history a difficulty wns found iu relation to the State of Missouri. We had then large tract of land utterly unset tled ; the settlements in tho Louisiana purchase had commenced near the mouth of the Mississippi, and gradually proceeded up ; but a large part of the Territory was entirely a wilderness, nnd Con gress found themselves Iu difficulty ns to the ques tion of slavery and freedom lu that Territory. What did they do? It occurred to tho mind nt once, "It cannot be slavcholdlng arid free territory nt tlio same time; wo cannot have It both nt once." I can hardly conceive of nny result tint would more naturally occur lo tlio mind than to divide it. If two men own a field and ono wants to sow It with oats and the other with wheat, and they cannot have oils nnd wheat together with nnysuc cosi, I do not know nny other wny to get along with It peaceably but to divide the field, and then It may becultlvated with mutual advantage. This is an old lesson; it began very early I have had occasion before to call attention to It, nnd will ngain. "And Abraham said unto Lot, let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me nnd thee, and between my hcrdmcn nnd thy herdinen, for we bo brethren." "If thou wilt take theleft hand, then I will go to the right; or If thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to tho left." This territory was devidod: Missouri was ad mitted; tho line of SO deg. !)U min. was run, and it was declared that shall bo our division. Was there anything wrong in that? Was there any thing so extraordinary in it that wc should now go to war with our fithers who made peaco among themselves by it ? Is not their example worthy of imitation ? It certainly is by all those who really desire peace; but H politicians ond other men can make themselves capital out of a constant turmoil and trouble, I eupposo they will never agree to it. Now, Mr. President, what is tho proposition of the Republican parly ? Nothing more, nothing less than to restore that line. 1 do not suppose that thoso who obliterated it will render unv as sistance to again drawing It upon the surface of! me eariu, out mat is the proposition, nnd that is all there is to it; for if wo say that slavery shall not go into the Territories, it amounts to tint, for there arc no Territories fur slavery to go into, but what are arranged, as things now arc, to any ex tent, unless it is north of tlio line. If wo go no flirtlior tllin ,1,1, ,rn ;m.t. on.- pn.. -1.-I1 -l - Morning iy iii'ii voic nun rcpenieu n. mat is ail. Exclusion of slavery from the Territories, nnd leave it uuintcrfercd with lu the Plates nlierc It exists, as insisted on by the Republican platform, is, in my estimation, but practically restoring the Missouri compromise, nnd I shall so call it in my rut,,-lr There miy be other aspects of the question: but really when we disembarrass it, strip it of its col laterals and contingencies, nnd piesent it in its practical light, there Is nil there is of it. Is it then one of those subjects that call so loudly on nil parts of the country, nnd especially on thc'South, for expressions of execration of ns? It seems to tne not. There is not only nothing new in it, but there Is nothing of the least apparent injustice in that which has been once fully agreed to, nml I think nevershould hive len disagreed to. Mr. llenjamin. I will not interrupt the Senator from Vermont by n question, if it embarrasses him nt nil in the courtc of his argument; but I would nsk him if he uitcnds referring, in the course of his remarks, to which I am listening with great interest, to the fact that the whole South endcav owl, by every possible means by remonstrance, entreaty, and every other jiossible means to get the gentlemen who now compose the Republican party lo agree to just what that Senator siys is what they now want ? Mr. Colhuncr. You mean to extend it to tlio Pacific ? Mr. llcnjimin. Yes; to leavo that line, not only ns a sacred line, as established in 1820, but to ex tend It lo the Pacific; and the proposition now is to put it Imck, after you have extended the free Slates south of tint line. Mr. Collamer. What do you mean by that? California Mr. ltenjimin. You took possession of n Terri tory south of the line; and after you have got that, now you say, restore the line back ngain, Mr. Collainer. If tho gentleman will bo a little patient, he will find that I shall not blink that point at all; but I do not understand it as he dees. 1 have, however, no desire to avoid it. I expect to call attention to it. I said th it, in my opinion, that lino should not have been obliterated. I can not here but remark, in tho first place, ns to the making of it. Tho gentleman fiom Virginia (Mr. Hunter) in tho courso of this session spoke of that ns being a northern aggression; nnd he inndc ft discovery new to me, when he supposed the North made the line. Tho truth is the South made that line. I do not say that no northern men voted for it. There wercn very few, enough, with the south ern votes, to mako a majority; but tho great body, the majority, of Its supporters wcro southern men. They made it. I actually heard with ustonishment tho honorablo Senator from Virginia put that down ns one of the northci u nggrcssious. That is n new discovery to me. To my mind, that is very much like the man of whom 1 heard during the Canadian difficulties, who eald lie was willing to go over there nrd Help tlio Canadians to fight the Hritish. any time; and when asked why, bo said, "the Hritish are always pecking at somebody; ut one time they came into lloston nnd threw nil our tea into the harbor, nnd wo have not got over that yet." (Laughter.) I think this is about as new a read ing of history ns thnt. Hut, sir, what purposo bad that compromise line answered? Vthut had Ilia South got out of It? First, the making of that l'no admitted Missouri; it left Arkansas to be ad mitted smith of it, and left all tho country that could be formed Into Stiles anywhere south of 30 deg. UO mln, to bo mado si n eholding Territories, nnd so of course, sl.wcliolding States. In tho next placo the South wanted Texas; we know what for. Undisguised wns tho obiect. Mr. Calhoun offi cially, ns Secretary, of State, announced to tho world that it was to ho obtained to perpetuate slave ry. Thero was no disguise nbout that. They wanted that. How did they get It ) One among the means ny winch they obtained it, wns this: they provided that the line of 80 deg. SO min. should be continued across Texas. I know It would not glvo much even If that had been kept. It did not nmount to a great deal; but I shall liavo occa sion to refer to that again. Whatever was north of that lino in Texas, was sequestered to tho causo of freedom. That was ono of tho elements that entered Into the obtaining of the annexation of lexas. It was one of tho means by which they ef fected that. Afterwards, there was n dlsputo grow ing out ot what 1 thought there was nover lunch ground for a claim of Texas to a largo quantity of land now forming part of New Mexico, nud which was thus sequestered to thocauc of freedom, if iu Texas. The United Stales finally gavo Tex as S10.000.000 to nult-clalm nil her right to that territory nnd have it belong lo New Mexico, where It would stnnd a chance of being slavo tcnitory, and would not fall within the saving of thisclauso ot tho Texas nniicxntlon resolutions. It Is not necessary to traco tho history of the difficulties which were attempted to ho settled, nnd in some measure wcro settled, by what were culled tho compromise measures of 1860; but tho great point which was desired to bo obtained by tho no No.'14. tion of that year professedly desired, and I do not know but really wns that Congress should settle tho subject of slavery for nil tho country wo then owned, as tliecomnrom!so line of 1820 had settled tho condition of the country In relation to nil wc then owned, nnd tho ordlnnnco of 1787 ns to nil wo then owned. Ifow wnsltsettlcdln i860? It was said that If Congress passed tho measures In relation to Utah and New Mexico, nnd the other compromise measures then agreed upon, tlicro would bo no territory left about which to quarrel In relation to tlio subject of slavery; It would oil bo settled and arranged, nnd thero would be, ns they said at that time, a finality of that topic Thoso compromlso measures were pissed. They wcro passed because tho Missouri compromise line had settled all the Louisiana purchase, nnd they took it up there nud settled nil beyond; ami these two standing together made a perfect provision for tho wholo subject In tho whole Union. Thus It was that tho Missouri compromise line entered ns a very large element into the formation of tho com promise mexsuros of 1850. It was the lending In gredient In It, IccauMs that settlement was In re lation to a large nnd moro Important part of tho country than tho other. By means of this compromise line, tho South had, from step to step, as I have stated, obtained these several advantages; and what elo wo como to next ? This had operated as a sort of stool-pigeon , a decoy, to enable them to go on, step, nftcr step, with these various arrangement ns they wanted. It quieted the North; it enabled them to obtain from tho North these various measures. Hut sir, when. they had gotten them nil through; when theic was no more expectation of obtaining any thlny soutli of the line; when they had secured everv ndvnnlnrro II wo. nroMlenbln In liftvArW.tn t now they must just nt once take down the stool- ' pigeon, destroy this decoy, obliterate the line, nnd I sprend their peculiar Institution ns much north of it ns they could. That wns nttcmpted to bo dono in 1851, by the legislation of that year. Now I come to the point that tho Senator from Louisiana suggests. Why was that compromise repealed? Why was that lino obliterated ? Here let mo say, that the more excuses ft mnn makes for n thing, the less wo ure satisfied with it. A good excuse or reason is perfect in itself; it is not made by eollecting together half a dozen Imperfect ones; nnd I will now call tho attention to some of what nre said lobe the causes of that obliteration. First, wc nre told by the honorable Senator from Louisi ana that the North were unfaithful to the agree ment. I know the honorable Senator from Louisi ana, in putting the question to me, docs not use those terms; but they arc the terms that arc at tempted to be usod In presenting this proposition to the community; that the North were unfaithful and untrue to the Missouri compromise line. How I What do you mean by being true and faithful to .a compact; What Is meant by It In the Encrlldi langungo? I take it, it is tho carrying out and ( executing the compact according to its terms, nc- j cording to tho understanding of it when it was made. What was the understanding In relation to that compromise line w hen It was made in 1820 ? , It was to run through tlio French purchase the Louisiana purchase, if you please fiom the Mis sissippi liver to the Rocky Mountains, Had not thnt always been carried out until It was repealed ? . What had ever tho northern people done that was I untrue to that compact ? Nothing, -nothing. Noth ing Is nrelenilod. Then lint n, Mendel OTOiiKn is ' unfounded. The allegation that they had been un- j true to it themselves is simply untrue. I liut wc arc told that they would not vote to cr. tend it afrcr the Mexican war and our obtaining from Mexico territory towards the Pacific. It is said they wouhl not ctniscnt to extend that same line through to the Pacfic. In relation to that point, I say, first, it is no matter what their reason was; it is not true that there was any sort of obligation on them to mako another bargain an1' tnJ u over oilier country . H never was any part of the original compact that It was to be extended over other territory; nnd therefore it is n matter of no sort ot Importance what tlicr reason tur tneir ac tion was. I was not present at the time those gen tlemen objected to that. I am not possessed of what their true reasons were. I do not think they need ed any. When ono man propose lo another lo en ter into a compact, he has simply to say, "I do not intend to entertain It." What then? It Is very obvious that the gentlemen who represented the free States on that occasion were in n very different condition about that territory, for the country ob tained Irom .Mexico had no slavery in it; it had . been abolished while the country belonging to Mexico; it was not ft slavcholdlng country nt nil; nnd thcrefoic they probably may have thought, , though I do not know it, that their constituents would not have approved of their making ft bar-' gain to give nway and mnke into slivc territoty , that which was already free, by any means, liut gentlemen say they ngrced to divide tlio new Ter- i ritories tint weio tlaveholdlng. Very well; you , may have been generous on tint occasion; that makes no demand on the other side to reciprocate it on n different occasion. Hut that is not the great difficulty with the thing. Suppose tho North, as , you say, would not agree to e.Mend that lino over I the newly acquired territory: what then? Yon j night find fault, if you pleased; perhaps you would j have occasion to do so; I do not say whether you would or not; but this I say : what sort of excuse can a man of common discernment make to another of similar character, to say, "Sir, because you will , not make this other additional bargain, I will break up the one I made myself." That is what you did do. Ycu repealed the Missouri comprom-1 isc line in the country called the Louisiana pur- ' ch we, for which it was unde, nnd to which it was confined. To my mind this is rattier a lame et- . cuse; In short, it is no excuse at all; but it is said that that was the reason why it was repealed. The next reason is the one w hlch is put into the re pealing bill. That bill, called tho Konsas-Nebras. ka act, which repealed the eighth section of the j Missouri net, does not say that it was repealed for any such cause as that which I have jxst noticed. It says lhat it was to be declared null ami void; 1 because it was inconsistent with the principles of tne compronitso nets ot lffou. mat is nic lenson given in the bill. I can merely say, thoso who pass cd it put on tlio record that as the reason, nnd it is I will not give it nny bad name a sort of equivocation fur any man to resort to nny other reason when he has recorded the ono which hegavo nt tho time; he is slopped from giving nny others. That Is an cntlicly diffeicnt reason, and utterly in consistent wilh the first; and, besides, theyaro both I talsc; for tho latter one, though it was put on rcc ord that it was inconsistent with tho compromise of 1850, is just ns wrong ns the other. The fact Is. thnt enninromiso nf 1R,ri0. was made on tho frr.Min.l tlit, the fnrmi'i' nnn nt 1 fiOf) riflrl ntol 1 parcel of the arrangement; and therefore this ex cuse is equally unfounded with the other. Hut, Mr. President, I have now attended to three reasons for the repeal. Tho gentleman from Virginia found fault with the compromiso of 1820, because, he said, the North made It, and it was an tiLgrcssion when it was made. Tho next reason that Is given Is, 'that they would not extend it. The third reason is the one put Into tlio bill, (hat it was contrary to the compromise of 1850; but wc have this session, nnd perhaps within a short period before, got another reason. It is said that it is unconstitutional; that Congress was well jus tified lu if pealing It, because It was unconstitution al. Mr. AVigfall. With the consent of tho Senator, I will ask him a question. I do not want to pro tract this debate, because I have a littlo matter tint I w'ant to get up after it is over; but, just as a matter of curiosity, I should like to know what tho Senator understands to have been tho principle of tho coinpromlso of 1850 as to Utah and New Mexico ? Mr. Collamer. It was this: tlicro had been dif. ficultles and controversies about tlio forming of territorial governments In those territories. Con gress could not agree on It. At first wo had Cali fornia In willi them Mr. Wigfalt. Leave California out. Mr. Collamer. It was lu it. It wns In it for a year or two, until Callfmnia formed a State gov ernment. Then, when It camo to the compromiso period of 1850, ns nai t of tlio compromiso, Cali fornia was ndmlllcd ns a State. As to Utah and New Mexico, there had been bills, especially for New Mexico, pending lu Congress before that. Various measures had been proposed In relation to them; tho northern peoplo insisting on the appli cation of tho provision of tho ordinance of 1787, declaring that tlavery should never exist there. They would not pass them without It. When Con gress passed them, they weio passed without that, and with n provision that the peoplo might make them frco or slave States, and that they should bo TKUM8 POIt ADVERTISING. FOh'OSnSQl' III! of Twstrs Lists or less nonpareil type, elite small, st sis1 used,) tnaxa issearioss, $tt for each substKiuent Insertion, 20 cents. The number ot Insertions imist so marked ot, all advertisements or they nlll be con ItnueifViiiitll ordered out. Contracts will lc made with .a trortlsern iy thu column or fractional parts thereof, at lIlKfal toscM Transient ndrcrtlsemcnta to be paid In id. Vance. T Tor all Proliato Advertisements, excepting notices of applies, tloits to sell Ileal Kstato, and for Commissioner Notices, (11, CO each for three insertions For notices of Mherallons, F.stra,lho formation and disso lution or Copartnerships, kc , 1 each for thrco Insertions. If sent hy mall the money must accompany the order. For lli'sisRss (.'inns In the first column from $3.00 to $3.00 per year accord In; lo the space they occupy. admitted ns they should bo formed,' whenever they should become States. Mr. Wlgfill. That was tho principle? Mr. Collamer. That was the provision In re lation to them. Mr. igf.ill. That the Territories should settle it for themselves; and thnt Congress should not, in tho mean time, Interpose to prohibit the introduc tion of slnvery ? Mr. Collamer. No, sir. When the gentleman says tho Territories should settle It for themselves, he Includes moro than I understand It Mr. Wigf.ill. I nm not n squatter-sovereignty man, Mr. Collamer. That is n point yon hive got In that was not put In. It was put in In relation to Nebraska nnd Kansas; but it was not put in In re lation to the others. Sir. Wlgfill. Hid they net have tlio right to regulato their own affairs, without nny Interposi tion of Congress as to slavery ? Mr. Collamer. There was nothing said nbout that. Mr. Wlgfall. Was tlicro any Interposition on tho part of Congress, either to establish or pro hibit slavery there? Mr. Collamer. There wa3 none. Mr. Wlgrdl. Theh the principle, If there was any principle, involved in tiie Utah and New Mex ico bills, was, that Congress should not legislate either lo establish or protect Mr. Collamer. You arc drawing a conclusion. Mr. Wlgfall. I am asklug for information, Mr. Collamer. The bills are very plain. Mr. Wlguill. These nre historical facts; only philosophers can give reasons. I was asking 'for n reason, possibly; but I want the Senntor, before he goes on, to answer thnt. Yon tee I am a nev Senator y ct, and do not understand these questions. Now, I understand at least liefore I got here I had supposed that the Utah and New Mexico bills left this question beyond nil doubt that Congress did not, in those bills, cither Interpose for or ngalnst slavery. Is that true, or Is It not ? Mr. Collamer. I have stated about that. There had been a difficulty In forming thoso territorial governments, because n partcf the country insist ed on putting in the ordinance of 1787. Mr. Wlgfall. Yes, sir. Mr. Collamer. Congress could not agree to it; but when they bad the making of tho compromiso of 1850, as part and parcel of it, these two Terri tories had territorial nets passed for them, which will speak for themselves, but they were passed witiiout the prnhlbillon of the ordinance of 1787. Mr. Wigfall. Precisely. Then I want to nsk the Senator, when you come lo form a new territo rial bill as to Kansas and Nebraska, if you arc not following out the precedent ? I do not talk about the principle spoken of in the great speeches thnt weic circulated in thousands and handreds of thousands, but If the precedent was not followed when tho Missouri restriction was repealed snd the Kansas-Nebraska bill wns passed, ns the Utah and New Mexico bills were passed, without any pro vision either favoring or disCavoring slavery? That is the question. Mr. Collamer. The gentleman has made his own speech, taking his own premises, and drawing his own conclusions. I can present very different views. I think that thnt whole compromise must be taken together. Mr. Wigfall. The omnibus was turned over, and tiiey were passed as separate bills. Mr. Collamer. They wer passed as separate bills, but they all constituted a compromise, and aro so spoken of in the Nebraska act. It was a compromise consisting of three or four acts passed here. Tint compromise put together made a whole, and I insist that it was a disintegration and destruction of the principle on which they went when you repealed the compromise line which set tled the condition of a large part of the territory, nud s.l.1.1. oettiotnent entered into and constituted part of the very compromiso ol 180O. Mr. Wigfall. With tho permission of tho Sena tor, I will ngain draw his attention to tho fact that the Utah and New Mexico bills were passed without any provision cither establishing or prohibiting slavery, and thai the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in oeder to bo pa.e.d in accordance with that precedent, must necessarily have repealed the Mis souri restriction, or it would have recognized the right cf Congress to interpose. Therefore, what the Senator would call non-interposition, I call in terposition. What he would call non-intervention, I call intervention. As there had previously passed ft bill in 18:0 Mr. Collamer. The gentleman is making a speech of his own ; be has not asked mc a question, lie is making up his own logic, stating bis premis es, and drawing his conclusions in his own way. I siy all the parts of tluit compromise constitute a whole. They should be left to stnnd together, and I have already said what I considered entered into and constituted ft part of it. Now gentlemen say, that when they came to pass a law making a terri torial government for Kansas and Nebraska, they had to pass it like those for which they had a pre cedent. How was there nny obligation to do that? Not the least in the world. If a man has sold land for ten dollais nu acre, a large tract, and should afterwards tell n similar, amount to the same purchaser for twenty dollars, could he then say, "now you must give mo twenty dollars for the first?" They had made arrangements nil about that line before; the compromise was made on that basis; and now, when they came to make a terri torial government, were they obliged to mnke it on the Utah act, passed since the line wnsairauged ? I was stating the reasons which were attempted to be given for that repeal. The first, mentioned jierc by the Senator from Virginia, was that the North made it, nnd that it was nn aggression; tho second wns that it was not extended over other Territciies, but a new bargain made for them; the third was, that it was inconsistent with the com promise of 1850; nnd the fourth is, that it was un constitutional all the while, lo my minu, tins last is like Jack Fallstnff's, "I knew you all the while." It is an after-thought, a new discovery. Is it possible that theso gentlemen can give that as an excuse for doing the thing wheu they did not explain it or state it at the time they did it ? Agiin, Is it becoming in these people to say, "We agreed to this proposition; we made tills ar rangement with you iu 1820; we have had our States admitted south of tho line, according to it j we have had the consideration on our part, and now wc Inru around on you, nnd tell you we never had nny authority to make it, and wc knew wo had not when wcdid it; it was a great delusion from beginning to end?" The truth is, that, in common ethics, ns well as in law, when n man ex ercises tlio power to do a thing, ho is estopped from saying he had not the power. If a man sell me a horso as ills, he cannot afterwards, after taking his pay, tell me that tho horse belonged to nnother man. lie has no right to say It; he is estopped from saying it. So with thoso who exercised this power. They nro not nt liberty, in law or in morality, to say that they had not the right to do it. It is totally immaterial whether they had or had not the power. With them, it should bo held sacred; for tliey did it. Hut, Mr. President, I hnvo been unable to see what wos the difficulty in this compromise line, making it constitutional. Wns It unconstitutional becauso it was not long enough I Is It possible for you to say that if It had been extended to tho Pa cific it would have been a good and constitutional lino? Hero stands the honorable Senator from Louisiana; and n more ingenious lawyer certain ly can seldom be found, whatever may have been said about the Philadelphia lawyers; but he stands iiere and puts to mo a question Implying plainly that tlio difficulty was, wc would not extend the line. Then you were willing to extend it ond for bid slavery north of it clear to the Pacifio? Yes. Then how had you a right to do it ; or do you mean to acknowledge that you were then trying to play another trick on us ? I do not believe anything of this notion; you did not believe It nt the tlmo; and It is an excuse that should not be permitted to be made by nny man, Hut, Mr. President, how has tlio experiment of tho repeal of tho Missouri compromise, nnd the measure which followed it, worked ? What was Involved in It? What did it propose to do? If tho honorable Senator from Texas (Mr. Wlgfall) were now heic, and designed to obtain my Idea on this subject, he would probably obtain It. The Kansas blil was entirely a different bill from the New Mexico nnS Utah acts. In that section re pealing tho Missouri compromise line. It not only declared that, being inconsistent with the princi ples of the compromise of 18S0, that line was thereby declared Imperative nnd void, but it fur ther went on to provide that Congress would nei tlier legislate slavery Into tho Territory, nor ei cludo it therefrom; but thnt the people thereof