(HE DOLLAR PER ANNUM, INVARIABLY IN ADVANCE. TOWANDA : i?ilrroian filorninn, 0.-ccmbcr 18. 185b. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. j,EJIA TE JX THE SENATE, DECEMBER 3, lssf>, , ~ !:.• iv tion 1" i ring lift ecu thousand additional copies . tho President's Message, for the use of the Senate. Mr. MAHtN. Mr. President, the constant . obstinate agitation of questions connected with the institution of slavery has brought, I am satisfied, the public mind, in those States where the institution prevails, to the conviction iiiat the preservation of that institution rests with tliciuselves and with themselves only.— •Porefore. at this day, when it is the pleasure ~f S,iiators again to bring that institution un ,),-r review upon this floor, in any connection whatever, as one of the representatives of the v„|th 1 take no further interest in the discus v,u. or in the opinion which is entertained at the North in relation to it, than as it may con linn the hope that there is a public sentiment the North yet remaining which unites with tl,e South in the desire to perpetuate the Uu , .ij. and that, bv the aid of tiiat public scnti i.. .d at the North, the Union will be prescrv , * l!ut further than that, as a statesman, 1 as Kite representing n southern State where thai institution prevails more largely than in utiier, the public sentiment of the North .. a matter indilTerent to me, because, I say v. l.i.ve attained the conviction that -..ft rv of that institution will rest, must re-' ai.'i should rest, with the people of the Slat' so! !v where it prevails. 1 sin ui'l have taken no part in this debate, lie that 1 ain indisposed to allow any opinion _•> ; read that we of the South entertain a virv - • ! interest in the lines of discrimiwa • : or i e shades of distinction which may be v. -to the extent of the alleged power r, • i irt of the Government of the United s" interfere with the institution at all. i„niiv term or shape, or to have it supposed • : w- take an interest in having it narrowed v. ii !" I lie question w hot her that interference, a it s i M rted, is to be confined to the iu ■ • ,'i ! outside of the States, and is not to .-.io-t it within the States. 1 know, as has i-c], said by the Senator from New llamp :v. ai the course <•! the Lst canvass, occa ,.v iii public discussions, or in the news ; -r\ a di-cluimcr has been made of any pur to interfere wi'h slave? v in the States. 1 bs a few and perhaps ol those who may d tie fanatical portion, have assumed ' or have declared that a right exists to vr< with the institution with the States. Vt :;d I want to declare here in my place on • floor is, that to the South such distinctions matters of immaterial concern. If the Fe nd (iovcrnniciit assumes a right, or if those id get into power who assume a right with :urjKtse to exercise it to interfere with that tution anywhere where it exist- within the atni States, it is a matter perfectly indiiler • in a- whet her it is to tic done within the .- or outside of the States. 1 take not the >i''.'i;'"st interest in the distinction which i.> • _*lit to lie drawn. S r. 1 hold this to be the constitutional doc- P: tin. institution of slavery existed when ■('■ institution was formed : it is recognized '; rt'as an existing social institution. It is ■ • >. protei ted by the duty imposed upon l ut-nil Government to see to tlie rendi ! e: ' "_ ; !ivcs from if, but it is elevated into • dement of political power by the t'onstitu . it i- rejuesenteil and made an element opij.tii ul power. That is the contract into • di we entered. 1 say, then, that being so ' i>rthe Constitution, and in tfo. spirit ami • 1 >! the ('insli/xtii a, ire hare a rhf/il to the '' •sitinuile expansion of the. institution ■ ' there irere a poaer in the Federal (lur 'l -rt to restrict or limit 'hot expansion, it !■' j rlcrllji indifferent to its whether if '/• . ten ised hi/ prohibiting its expansion thi Stales a here it esisis, or outside their ■ gnurniiiirJ to the States retaining it iv i t!t !ifit of power, foi which full equiva * WM'-.'exacted and conceded ; and its ca * y fur expausion, fully to he enjoyed, is a v ]>art of the contract. ' lV again, therefore, for myself, and as i,v i know the ojtinioiis of ntv people, we no intc rest in northern opinion on this !< any linos of demnrkation beyond 1 rctieral power over this institution may 1 xtciul, e.\ i}it so far as resjtect and loyal he cue tract will lead them, hi union with N itt'i, to preserve and perpetuate the 'Jott wl•■ ■• ii otherwise must be destroyed. • • v i< :,i;>e of the earnest and anxious w 1 entertain, that a fabric of Gov l|! a hit h has had no predecessor in the w ' is the last I which is to emanate from the present j._ ' ;i I therefore he is disposed to let J,,;. ,! u '' s.-vefitv of comment, lie may I ,;l! ' himself; for, if 1 do not mistake Isi' , v l ''" truths, the patriotic and "'li'ol that message will penetrate the . wart, and cause it to throb with pul jO"! purposes not exactly in unison with I !s, ' lla, °r and the party with which | f ~ 1 - 'do not doubt, and avail my- I "' ca>ion to declare it as my jndg '"'t the sentiments and the reasoning of i w 'll find a responsive " yea'' |j. '' 'hrouglioHt the world, the great I k d " r|Vi ' liberty are known and apprc- d!l - i:i-|iirril with new hope* in the re r!• , j ,u!o ion to find that the north -111 ' 'in of the most important btates w here this instilution does not THE BRADFORD REPORTER. prevail, concurring with the views now given in the message, did unite with the South in keeping out of power a party whose success must necessarily have torn this Union into fragments. Two middle States, Pennsylvania and New-Jersey, and two Western States, In diana and Illinois, repudiated, upon a direct issue in the canvass made, naked, uncovered, open, any power in the Federal Government to interfere with the extension of slavery, into territory the common property of all the States, by majorities which carried the presidential election against that party. I trust there will be found on all future occasion, if we are ever to undergo the ordeal from which we have re cently emerged, a northern sentiment sound upon this question of constitutional power— sound as we of the South esteem it, who, in union with the South, will have it in their power for ages to eoine to perpetuate a Union that must otherwise be destroyed. I can well understand, therefore, why the honorable Senator says, as a matter of gratn lation to those who think with him, that this is the last message which is to emanate from its source. I should hope that the truths which emanate from that paper will reach the northern mind, and that they will unite, in a common, patri vtie interest and purpose, to come back to the Constitution which our fathers framed, and to which we are parties —to come back to that Constitution, and to administer it legitimately, and give to tlie South what the South is entitled to, while the North and West obtain w hat they are entitled to. Or if it be that they really entertain an houe.-t and con scientious conviction that they cannot remain in union with us, let them propose a separation fairly and openly ; but while the contract is there, keep it. I hold the most essential part of that contract to the South, now falling into a minority, to be, that it shall be kept toward the minority in honorable faith, and that eve ry element of political power it guarantied to them shall lie fairly and honorably con ceded. •Now, sir, I have said not one word of disre spect, or ot discourtesy, toward the party which has been arrayed against the South in the late election. Ido not mean to do so ; it would not. become me. They constitute apart of the American people, with whom we are in bonds of association, and I have no right to question their motives. I do not question tlieni ; but 1 do question their political pur poses. I say that, when the passions of the day have subsided, this country, and the world looking on, will pay a tribute of ju.-t applause to the eminent author of this message, and to the great principles which he has there pro pounded. Mr. \\ ILSON. Mr. President, the Sena tor troui .Mississippi [Mr. BROWN j has alluded to opinions which he says are entertained and liavc been expressed by rue. I cannot allow this debate to pass without saving here what I have said everywhere wherever 1 have alluded to this question, that 1 do not entertain, and never have entertained, and never have express ed the opinion that the Congress of the Uni ted States has the power to abolish shivery in the States ol this L uion. I never, at anv time, or on any occasion, have uttered a senti ment claiming power for the Federal Govern ment to abolish slavery in the States, or as serting" that those with whom I act ever in tended to assume or to exercise that power. I admit that there are men in the free States of this Union who maintain that doctrine. The Senator from New Hampshire says lie does not know such men ; I do. 1 know .Mr. Spooner, to whom the Senator from Mississippi has re ferred. 1 know his opinions and his sentiments. I have read his volume with some little care, and while I admit it to be a work of great {earning and power, J do not assent to it.— There is asm II class of iiieu in the free States who agree with the sentiments avowed in tlie book written by Mr. Spooner. Their candi date, in the last election, was Mr. Gerrit Siuith, of New-York. I do not know how many votes lie received, but 1 take it not two thousand in all the free States of this Union. The month ly publication to which the Senator from Lou isiana ami others have referred, published in New York—a publication supported and con ducted by Mr. Tappan, Mr. (Joodell, and oth ers who agree with them—claims the right on the part of the Federal Government toaboli.-h slavery in the States, and advocates that poli cy ; but the people ol the free States, the one million three hundred thousand men who voted for John C. Fremont in the last presidential election, maintain no such doctrine, never have maintained it, do not claim any such power, and never intend to usurp it. The party to which reference has been made in this message—for I take it this assault of the President of the United States is upon the Republican party, and the people who have supported that organization in the last election —stands before the country with its opinions clearly expressed and openly avowed, it has a right to claim from the President of the United States—it lias a right to claim from honorable Senators here—it has a right to claim before the country that it shall stand up on its broad and open declarations of princi ple. How does it stand ? It accepts the De claration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States as its fundamental creed of doctrine. It claims that Congress has a right to legislate for the Territories of the United States, and to exclude slavery from them, it avows its determination to exercise that power. It lias u right to ask of the i're sident, and the country, that it shall be judg ed bv its open and avowed declarations, and shall not be misrepresented, as it has been mis represented in this document by the President of the United States. The declaration is broadly made here, not only that these men are scetionalists --not only that they have got ten up a sectional warfare, but that they are maintaining doctrines hostile to the perpetuity of the Union. Now. sir, let me say here to day, that 1 do not know a man in the free States who supported John C. Fremont iu the last presidential election, not one of the one million three hundred thousand intelligent free men who supported that nomination, that ever avowed hia intention to go lor a di*.A>lutiou ot PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY AT TOWANDA. BRADFORD COUNTY, PA., BY E. O'MEARA GOODRICH. " REGARDLESS OF DENUNCIATION FROM AN? QL'ARTER." this Union •. but all times, on all occasions, in public and in private, the? have avowed their devotion to the Union, and their intention to maintain and defend it. Let me say further, that the men in this country, who avow themselves to be disunion ists, that squad which, during the last thirty years, on all lit and unlit occasions, in moments of excitement and moments of calm, have avowed themselves disunionists, have, as a bo dy, en masse, supported the Democratic party. The whole southern heavens have been darken ed during the last four months by the black banners of disunion that have floated in the breeze. Public men, members of the Congress of the I iiited States, who had sworn to sup port the Constitution of our common country, have made the declaration, that if John C. Fremont were elected President, the Union would be, and ought to be, dissolved. The Senator from Virginia has to-day expressed his hope that a class of men in the free States, in the future as in the present, will so act in co operation with the South as to preserve the policy which he supports, and thus preserve the unity of the States ; I remember reading during the canvass a letter from that honora ble gentleman, in which there was a bold de claration for a dissolution of the Union, imme diate, absolute, and eternal, in certain contin gencies. That is not all : the Senator from Georgia, not now present, [Mr. TOOMBS,! and the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SI.IDKU.,] have united in these declarations ; and leading men, Governors of States, have made the same avowal. The men who threaten dissolution are supporters of this Administration, and of Mr. Buchanan ; but yet the Chief Magistrate in this document arraigns the members of the Republican party as men whose policy tends to a dissolution of the Union. 1 say these charges agaiust us are not only unjust,but they are a libel upon the intelligent frceiuen of the U*iiited States. It has been claimed here to-day that the people of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois—central States—have voted in this election upon the square issue of the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Let me say here, what I know to be true, that in some portions of these very States public meetings were called of persons in favor of Buchanan, Breckenridge, and free Kansas. 1 have read these calls. I have in my possession one of them, which was issued in the State of Penn sylvania. There are others in the possession of members of this house or the other. Through out the whole canvass in these very States the issue was blinked ; and not only that, but it was claimed that tho.sp members of the House of Representatives who voted for Mr. DUNN'S bill were pro slavery men ; and men have been elected to the next llousc of Representatives under professions of stronger hostility to sla very than those very Republican members. Sir, the President claims, in this message, that the country.has pronounced its verdict in favor of his policy. I admit that the issue was more clearly and distinctly made than at any other period in our history. It was made, but the Democracy of the North in hundreds of localities denied that issue, and tens of thou sands of men voted for Mr. Huchauau who agree with us in principle, but vho would not admit that this great question was an issue in the canvass. I hold in my hand an extract from the Detroit Free Press , one of the lead ing Democratic journals of the country, in which the doctrine is distinctly laid down, that the President cannot justly claim the result of the present election as any justification of the policy he has pursued. Let me read a few words from this article. Speaking of the Pre sident, it says ; " Had ftcner.il Pierce. at the outset, and at ever =u-- ceoiling -tcp, discarded the idea of a second term, ire Hunk hi i roil Id hare pur. ued so different a policy touching Xeir- Vork piihtirs, the Kansas question, the improvement of ri vers and harbors, tpr., that he would go out of office ivith an almost universal plaudit of' well done,'instead of hav ing to go out ' nnh inored. unwept, and unsung,' by tens of thousands who aided his election. The overweening desire of a second term he- been fatal to liiin ; and it seem ed at one time that his blunders—to employ a term not more offensive—might be fatal to the Democratic party. He must not—he will make a great mistake if he does - regard the election of Mr. lUiehanan an indorsement of that part of the conduct of his Administration to which we mure particularly refer. Had that been the issue, or had General fierce been the candidate, neither Pennsylva nia, nor Xetr-.frrsty,nor Indiana, nor Illinois, nor Dela ware, nor Kentucky, nor Tennessee, nor Missouri. nor tAjuisiana, coiilil hare been saved ; and Mr. John Charles Krcmont would have walked into the presidential man sion by an electoral majority uearly as large as that given to Ceneral Pierre four years ago. It is an unpleasant truth to tell, but it is a truth of whirl) everybody in the North is aware, that the late peril of the Democratic par ty arose chiefly from the untoward policy of the Adminis tration rega ding affairs in Kansas. Had Mr. Kremont hi en elected, the failure of (leneral Pierre to do his plain dutv towards Kansas would have been the cause of it." before the President makes this claim that the people have endorsed lii.s policy it would be well for liim to contemplate his own position. He went before the country as a candidate for tlie nomination at Cincinnati, lie brought to bear, as every man in the Senate, supporter or opponent of this Administration knows, the whole power and patronage of the Government to secure that nomination. The Administra tion went so far as to turn out of office men in this very city, because they were known to lie in favor of Mr. Huchanan. The President's name went before the Cincinnati Convention, lie was rejected by the Democratic party ; for they dared not run him, because he was the exponent of the principles which they now claim has been sanctioned by the countrv.— They nominated Mr. Bnehanan. They dodged the great issue in thousands of localities in the free States ; and now, when the people have been deceived, the President claims the result, —the Senator from Virginia claims it, as a verdict in favor of his policy. The Senator from Virginia says the country will thank the President for what he has done. I think the President would have been more thankful to the Commonwealth of Virginia, if she had so thankful to him at the Cincinnati Con vention as to give him her support, and thus decide the contest in favor of the nomination which he sought with swell " overweening de sire I'' Mr. BROWN. * * But the Senator from Massachusetts says, and he challenges denial, that iu the late canvass in several parts of the Union banners were floated with " Buchanan, Breckinridge ami l ice Kan a," di played at the mast head. 1 know not what banners may have been reared, nor by what hands ; but 1 undertake to say thut if any banner was dis played throughout the whole length and breadth of this Confederacy, from the Aroostook to the Rio Grande, or from the Atlantic to the Pa cific, with such an inscription, it found no re sponse in the heart of the American Democracy. That mere neighborhood politicians should have put up snch a banuer is barely possible. Mark yon, I say, " barely possible." It is much more likely they were up by men in disguise men like the fellow in Kentucky, of whom a personal friend of mine in the other House told an anecdate. Being of low degree and of bad habits himself, he e< urted a most excellent girl. She was neither pretty nor rich ; and being a dashing blade, he was asked by a friend why he courted this lady. llis frieud said to him, " She has 110 money, and is not pretty ; you certainly do not mean to marry her?" He re plied, " I will marry her, but not for love, and not for mouey, but just to disgrace her fami ilv.'' [Laughter.] That banners of this sort may have been put up by the enemy, to dis grace the Democratic family, is possible ; but that they were put up by any man who has a true genuine Democratic Buchanan aud Breck inridge spirit in his heart, is not possible. It may have been done by men who voted the ticket, but they were men who belonged rather to the school of the Senator from Massachu setts, than that to which tou, Mr. President, and 1 beloug. Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, if I supposed thut this message was aimed simply | at a few Abolitionists in the North, who wish, ' as it. is said, to interfere with the existing in stitution of slavery, I certainly should not give it any of my attention. Not only the Presi dent. but Senators here, may abuse the Aboli tionists as roundly as they please, and they will never find me defending them 011 any occasion. : But this document, emanating from the Chief ! Magistrate of the nation, here on the first days j of the session, has thrust upon us the slavery ■ question, the agitation of which the Senator ' from Virginia seems to deprecate. He speaks ' of Senators agitating this question. Could he j expect otherwise than that Senators would agitate the question which the President of the ! United States makes the leading and proini- ; nciit question of his message? Did he expect that we should be still here when a.message was read professing to give a historical account of the recent canvass and the recent election, which misrepresented them totally ? I shall not go into an argument to prove here that the great party which has .swept the North, and I say has swept the States which the gentleman has designated as having sustained Mr. Buch anan, entertain no views hostile to the Union or the Constitution, or that they do not wish to interfere with slavery in any of the States of this Union. They adopted a platform; they inscribed upon it their principles ; they pub lished it to the world, and every man can read it. A part of that platform is that the rights of the States, the union of the States, and the Constitution of the country, must ami shall be preserved. That is our creed. Will you tell us that we want to interfere with the rights of the States ? You impute to us tliar which we have solemnly declared we are opposed to. I think it is just such remarks as those to which we have now listened from the Senator from Mississippi, that are alienating one sec tion of the Union from the other. He is ar guing here to show that the northern sentiment wishes to interfere with the institutions of the South. Does the Senator desire that state of things ? Why does he seek to fasten 011 us sentiments and opinions which we disclaim and disavow? He asks why we did not disavow this at the time in the North ? We did it at the outset ; we did it everywhere, and on all occasions But, sir, this message—and I shall not now take time to discuss its various positions—-con tains the most unwarrantable assumptions as to fact, and it states conclusions of law not sus tained bv the authorities. The President of the United States undertakes to say that the Missouri compromise, the act of 1820, under which Missouri came into the Union, was ob solete and was unconstitutional. Where did lie get the authority for saving so ? The Su preme Court of the United States has said, in so many words, that in regard to the Territo ries of the United States Congress possesses all the powers both of the Federal and Stat> governments as to a State. That is tin 1 lan guage of the Supreme Court of the U States. Is it denied by any body that the Federal and State governments together have authority to keep slavery out of a State. Mr. CASS. I should like to hear that de cision read. I never saw it. Mr TRUMBULL. It is in the first vol ume of Peters' Reports. I desire the pages to bring it to me from the Library. Never has it been said by the Supreme Court—no sueli decision can be found that Congress had not authority to exclude slavery from the Territo ries. I have now the book for which I sent. I do not know, however, that I shall be able to turn to the decision at once. I ask my friend from Connecticut [Mr. FOSTKRJ to oblige me by looking for it. When it is found I shall furnish it to the Senator from Michigan, and shall be very glad to have him read it and pon der on it : I hope it will convince him. Much of the President's message is taken ii|) with a discussion as to the equality of the States and the rights of the"States. The Sena tor from New Hampshire has well exposed this portion of the message in commenting on that „pnrt pf it which professes to set forth what was settled by the recent election. The President says : '• Tlie people of thr Unitml Slates ltavoa-s-prli dlliernn vtitotional equality of ea--h arul all of the States of the Union as States." Did anybody dispute it ? The message pro coeds to say : •• They have affirmed thr constitutional cqnalitroOai-li and all of the citi/a-ns of th< I'nitrd States as ritiVen-." who ever disputed it ? Was* any such ques tion in issue before the American people ? •• ivhatever their religion, wherever their birth, ortheir residmer ; thev Imvp maintained the-mviolnhilitv of thr ron:titiiti'>ual rigti : the Jifl'viem ect:on ••! trc lu —who proposed to interfere with them ? —" and they have proclaimed their devoted and nnaJter aterable attachment to the Union and to the Constitution" I trust they have— " aa objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the rights of all, as the spirit and essence of the liberty, peace, and greatness at the Republic." The President makes the same charge here, which is reiterated in the Senate, that " Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the Government they assailed, associations have been formed in sonic of the States of in dividuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of slavery into"the present or fu ture inchoute States of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic institutions of eoisting States," How did lie find that out ? Where is the evidence of it ? Sir, I assert that, so fur as I j know, there is no foundation for the aceusa- j tion. It is untrue. My friend from Connecticut has found the j decision to which I made allusion. In the case of the American Insurance Company and oth ers vs. Canter, Ist Peters, p. 5-1(5, the opinion of the Supremo Court was pronounced by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall. In that opinion is this sentence in regard to the Territories : "In | legislating for them; Congress exercises the \ combined powers of the General and of a State Government." I commend it and the whole j case to the careful examination of my distin- j gui.slicd friend from Michigan. Mr. CASS. The honorable Senator will ' perceive that it asserts no power. It does not I snv how the Constitution limits their action. Mr. TRUMBULL It does not assert any ; power further than this : it says expressly that, i as to a Territory, Congress exercises the com bined powers of the General and of a State I Government. If Congress has the combined powers of the General Government and of a State government, in regard to a Territory, I ask if it has not power sufficient to keep sla very out of a Territory ? Mr. CASS. No ; unless the Constitution gives it. The power that is exercised must be a power within the Constitution, or there is no authority for it. Mr. TRUMBULL. Let us follow that up. There is no such escape for the distinguished Senator. There is no quibbling in this opin- | ion about " under the Constitution." The de-1 duration is broad and unqualified, that in re- ' gard to a Territory Congress exercises all the • powers both of the General and of a State ! Government. Now, the Scuator tells me that ' even that being so, you cannot under the Con-1 stitution prevent slavery. Will he deny the i right of the State of Michigan to keep slavery 1 out of her limits ? According to the decision of Chief Justice Marshall, all the power which j the State of Michigan has in regard to its own : citizens is [assessed by Congress in regard to | the Territories of the United States, and if the State of Michigan can exclude slavery ; from its borders, then, if the Supreme Court ■ of the I nited States be any authority, Con gress can exclude it fnun one of the national Territories, because it possesses in a Territory all the power which a State possesses over its inhabitants, and possesses also the power which the Federal Government exercises over the State's. \\ hen it is said that Congress cannot exercise this power unless the Constitution gives it, that is begging the question. The decision of the court, the language of the judge, is that Congress has the power, lie could not say that if the Constitution did not give it. If the Constitution denied the power, how could the judge say that Congress possessed it ? He had the Constitution in view when writing this opinion. Sir, the doctrine now advanced is a n w and a modern discovery. Congress for merly possessed and exercised this power, and nobody doubted it. For the first fifty years of the Government the power was undisputed. It is a new discovery that Congress does not now possess it. But, sir, let me resume the consideration of the message. The President tells us that "it was imputed " that the measure of which he is speaking, the repeal of the Missouri com promise, " originated in the conception of ex tending the limits of slave labor beyond those previously assigned to it ; and that such was its natural as well as intended oft'ect ; and these baseless assumptions were made in the northern States the srround of unceasing assault upon constitutional right." Here the President in forms us that the charge made against those who repealed the Missouri compromise, that it was intended or conceived with the purpose of extending the limits of slavery beyond those previously assigned to it, was a bast-less as sumption. Now what docs the Senator from Virginia tell us ? He says that tinder the Constitution the South has a right to u legitimate expansion of slavery, and it is the right to expand the institution upon which he insists. When we charge that the design was to extend slavery into the free Territories of Kansas and Ne braska, the President says it is a baseless as sumption. The Senator from Virginia informs us that, lie insists on the right to the expansion of slavery. Who is right ? He tells us fur ther that the people in four of the northern States united in keeping out of power that par -1 ty which would have severed the Union into fragments. How would they have severed it ■ into fragments, I should like to know ? Did they propose to dissolve it ? Did they pro pose to encroach on the rights of the States ? They declared that the rights of the States should be preserved, llnw were they going ; to dissolve tlie Union ? Was it in any other way than this : it has been stated here, to-day, in the Senate, that if Colonel Fremont were | elected the Union must lie and ought to be dis • solved ! Because a particular man i- elected President of the United States, is that any reason for dissolving the Union ? Mr. MASON. Will the Senator allow me 1 to interrupt him for a moment ? Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly. Mr. M A SON. What I said was this : that if that party came into power avowing the pur poses which they did avow, it would necessari ly result in a dissolution of the, whether they desired it or not. It was utterly immaterial who wfls their President ; he might have been .1 man cf traw ; I alluded to the piuprr: of VOL. XVII. —XO. 28. the party. What I said in the letter to which one of the Senators has alluded, and what I said substantially in the remarks which I have made in this debate, was merely, that if the party came into power avowing the purpose? which they avowed, and prepared to execute them, it would necessarily reu!t in a dissolu tion of the Union, and then, ro far as the South was concerned, it should be immediate and eternal. Mr.TRUMBULL. I wish tocxamine that position. It is this—l will endeavor to state it in the language of the Senator—that if 'bo Republican party came into power with the principles which they avowed, it would neces sarily result in the dissolution of the Union, and that, as far as he and the South were con cerned, it should bfimmediote and eternal.— Now what principles did we avow ? Ii there any one hostile to the South ? I say we avow no principle upon this subject aboat which wo are now speaking, except those avowed by Thomas Jefferson himself, by Washington, and by Monroe. Is it any cause for a dissolution of the Union that a particular man is elected President ? Manifestly not ; and the Senator from Virginia does not contend for that. Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator from Illi nois allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly. Mr. RUSK. He and others have attribut ed the sentiment on which he is now comment ing so eloquently to the southern States. I desire to ask him if he docs not know that It had its origin in the northern States with one of the candidates for the Presidency ? Did he not first make the declaration tiiat tho cv6nt alluded to would dissolve the Union ? Mr. TRUMBULL. lam not the defender any third party, whose candidate may have made declarations as to the dissolution of the L iron. I say that the great Fremont party entertain and avow no such sentiment. Mr. RUSK. The Senator misunderstands me. Ido not ask him to defend Mr. Fillmore; but I ask hiiu to make the charge not against the South, but against the individual who com mitted the offense. Mr. HALE and Mr SEWARD That is fair. Mr. TRUMBULL I do not care who makes the charge that the election of Colonel Fremont to the Presidency would dissolve the Union. I say it is a baseless charge ; and manifestly it could not prevail, come from what party it may. The Senator from Virginia does not put himself now on the fact of any partic ular man being elected, but oa the principles avowed. To that I will pay attention in & moment ; but I wish first to dispose of the cla mor which has been raised in some parts of the country, that the election of a particular man is a cause fur a dissolution of the Union. Why, sir, neither Col. Fremont nor any other person can be elected President of the United States except iu the constitutional mode ; and if any individual is elected Presi dent iu the mode jirescribed by the Constitu tion, is that cause for a dissolution of the Un ion ? Assuredly not. If it be, the Constitu tion contains within itself the elements of its own destruction. The great principle lying at the bottom of the institutions of the country, and of the Constitution itself, is, that we must acquiesce iu the decisions of the majority, con stitutionally expressed, iu the selection of offi cers ; and until the person elected does some overt act violating the Constitution, until ne sets on foot some measure destructive of the Government, the fact that he is elected Pre.-i --dent in the constitutional mode affords no rea son whatever for the dissolution of the Union. Then would there have been any reason for its dissolution if the Republican party had suc ceeded with its avowed sentiments ? Mow, what were its avowed sentiments on the subject of slavery ? Opposition to its ex tension ; opposition to the spread of slavery iuto the Teiritories, and a declaration of the right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territories of the United States. Is that a cause for a dissolution of this Uuion ? 1 know that the Senator has said that it matters not to him whether the interference is with slavery outside of the States or within the Slates ; but I think the cases are very different. I think we have no right, and that there i.-> no intention on the part of the great body of the people of the North, to interfere with slavery in the States ; but I think there is an inten tion to prevent its extension outside of Sates into free Territories ; and there is a very great difference between these positions. Well sir, if the prevalence of these opin ions bo a cause for a di<-duiioL of the Union, which should be immediate and eternal, why. I ask, wrs not this Government dissolved tie year of its formation? Tlo;v did it happen that the very first Congress which over met un der the (''institution --1 +fi" United States adopted and reaffirmed that ordinance exclud ing slavery from tiir who'.- Northwest ? Why was not the Union then di-so; v* i ? if t is a cause in 1 fi> for a disolut : o!i of the Union te exclude -lavery from Kin-a* and Nebraska, was it not a cause m when slaverv whk excluded from the territory now covered by the States of Ohio. Indiana. Illinois, Wiscon sin, and Michigan ? Why, I n-k again, in IM2O, when Mr. Monroe was Pros; lent of the United Stales, was not the Union dissolved immediately and eternally Slavery was then by net of Congress excluded from the free ter ritory from which we now wish to exclude it. If this lie a reason for dissolving the -Union now, was it not a rea-on for dissolution then ? How did Mr. Monroe, front the State of Vir ginia himself, approve a bill excluding it from that territory ? Whv. sir, it is manifest that the public sentiment of this country has very much changed if ihh is a cause for dissolution of the UnUn now. In former times these acts of Congress excluding slavery from the North west and from the Territories of Kansas ami Nebraska were diemcd judicious and proper nets of legislation, voted for by the South, and carried bv southern votes Now we are told that the same legislation is cause for a disso j lution of the Union. This show-show thoCon ; stitution, which oar fathers made, and und I stood, and have put into operation, is prop 1 ( - -'v ?~4 •- Page