Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"Mr. RICHARDSON. The Constitution does not, in my opinion, carry the institutions of any States into the Territories; but it affords the same protection there to the institutions of one State as to another. The citizen of Virginia is as much entitled, in the common territory, to the protection of his property, under the Constitution, as the citizen of Illinois; both are dependent upon the legislation of the territorial government for laws to protect their property, of whatever kind it may be. Thus it will be seen that though there may be upon this point a difference theoretically,-involving questions for judicial decision,-yet there is none practically among the friends of non-intervention by Congress, as e practical result is to place the decision of the question m the hands of those who are most deeply interested in its solution, namely, the people of the Territory, who have made it their home, and whose interests are most deeply involved in the character of the institutions under which they are to live."-Congressional Globe, vol. 32, part 1, p.

222.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Subsequently, but on the same day, January 12, 1856, in reply to a question by Mr. BINGHAM, Colonel Richardson said:

"I said in my remarks this morning that, in my opinion, the people of a Territory have the right either to establish or prohibit African slavery. I think that is an answer to the gentleman's question."-Ibid. p. 227.

That was the answer of Colonel Richardson when a candidate for Speaker and questioned by southern as well as northern men as to his opinions on this very question. I was not here at the time. I was prostrate upon a sick bed,

in Indiana, with very little prospect of ever seeing the Capitol again. When Colonel Richardson's answer was read to me, I was rejoiced to hear that he had given a clear and explicit explanation of the true meaning of the KansasNebraska bill as we understood it. The Journals show that, upon this answer being given, the House proceeded to the one hundredth and eighth ballot for Speaker; and I ask my friend from Ohio to read the names of the men voting

for Mr. Richardson after this answer was made. Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"For Mr. Richardson.-Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Barclay, Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bennett, Bocock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, Caruthers, Caskie, Clingman, Howell Cobb, W. R. W. Cobb, Craige, Davidson, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliot, English, Faulkner, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L. Harris, Herbert, Hickman, Houston, Jewett, George W. Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kidwell, Letcher, Lumpkin, S. S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mordecai Oliver, Orr, Peck, Phelps, Powell, Quitman, Ruffin, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Samuel A. Smith. William Smith, Stevens, Stewart, Talbott, Vail, Warner, Watkins, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright, and John V. Wright."-Congressional Globe, vol. 32, part 1, p. 228.

lina, and others now present, had refused to vote for Richardson before this explanation was made, and this explanation, declaring himself in favor of non-intervention, in favor of the rights of the people of the Territories to do as they pleased, was so perfectly satisfactory to the members from South Carolina and other southern States that they all voted for him on the next ballot." [Laughter, and applause in the galleries.]

Who ever expected that, in less than five years from that day, you would find these same gentlemen making a test against a man because he held the identical sentiments which were then affirmed? I reckon I am about as sound on this question as Governor Richardson. He and I agree precisely in our construction of the act. He was the chairman of the Territorial Committee in one House, and I in the other; and less than five years ago you affirmed, either that you approved of Richardson's construction, or that his entertaining those views constituted no objection to him. Who has changed since that time? Is it I, who now avow the principles I did then, or those who now denounce me for holding the same opinions which they then seemed to sanction by their votes? I make no test with gentlemen. If they have honestly changed their opinions since that time, they should frankly avow the change. No man should cherish such a pride for consistency as to cling to error one moment after he is convinced of it; but a man, whenever he changes his opinions, ought to avow it, and give the reasons for the change, so as to remove the scales from our eyes also. If I can forgive all these honorable gentlemen for having changed their position, is it asking too much of them to forgive me for my fidelity to principles of action to which they and I were solemnly committed within so short a period?

But, Mr. President, I want to add a little more authority on this point. It will be remembered that in 1848 Alabama took the lead, at the Baltimore convention, in asserting the doctrine of will be remembered that in 1856 she took the congressional intervention in the Territories. It lead in demanding of the Cincinnati convention, as an ultimatum, the repudiation of the doctrine of intervention, and the adoption in its place of the doctrine of non-intervention. The Alabama State convention which appointed delegates to Cincinnati in 1856 happened to be in session when the contest for Speaker took place between Colonel Richardson and Mr. Banks. The Democracy of Alabama were looking to Washington for the result of that contest with intense anxiety. There stood the gallant Richardson, the author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill so far as the House was concerned, the nominee of his party, proclaiming to the world, in bold language, its

true meaning; and every Democrat in Alabama heartily sympathized with him, and hoped that Richardson, the defender of southern rights, might be elected Speaker. The State convention, then in session, representing the Democracy of Alabama, felt so deeply upon this subject, that they deemed it their duty to go out of the usual routine, and pass a resolution of approval. I ask my friend to read that resolution. Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"Resolved, That the course pursued by the gallant men of the South and North, in their efforts to organize the present Congress of the United States, by the election of Mr. Richardson as Speaker, receives our hearty approval. They have acted wisely in holding out against the designs of the fanatical majority to force a Free-Soil organization upon them; that in their hands we can safely trust the rights of the South and the true principle of conservative nationality, with the confidence that they will never abandon them in any trial, even amidst the confusion and terrors of disorganiza

tion."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have only to say upon this point that it seems the Alabama State convention, in 1856, did not regard Colonel Richardson's construction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill as so monstrous a heresy as to disqualify every man for office who held his opinions. It seems so from the fact that they endorsed the gallant Richardson and the faithful southerners who voted for him. This inference is confirmed by the fact that the same convention instructed their delegates to the Cincinnati convention to insist upon the express recognition of the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories as the only condition upon which Alabama would consent to be represented at Cincinnati. This was the ultimatum of the Alabama Democracy in 1856. I ask my friend from Ohio to read that part of the resolutions. Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"8. That it is expedient that we should be represented in the Democratic National Convention upon such conditions as are hereinafter expressed.

9. That the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, to nominate a President and Vice-President, are hereby expressly instructed to insist that the said convention shall adopt a platform of principles, as the basis of a national organization, prior to the nomination of candidates, unequivocally asserting, in substance, the following propositions: 1. The recognition and approval of the principle of nonintervention by Congress upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. 2. That no restriction or prohibition of slavery in any Territory shall hereafter be made by any act of Congress. 3. That no State shall be refused admission into the Union because of the existence of slavery therein. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance of the fugitive slave "10. That if said National Convention shall refuse to adopt the propositions embraced in the preceding resolution, our delegates to said convention are hereby positively instructed

law.

to withdraw therefrom."

Mr. DOUGLAS. There is some very sound and wholesome doctrine contained in these instructions. The Alabama delegates were to demand that the platform be made first, and that the platform should expressly affirm the doctrine of non-intervention. The Cincinnati convention acceded to the demands of the Alabama Democracy. I endorsed those propositions; I am willing to abide by them now. They are a fair exposition of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They are identical with the Cincinnati platform. The Charleston convention endorsed those identical propositions, and Alabama seceded because the convention did so! Alabama went into the Cin

cinnati convention demanding non-intervention as the condition on which she would remain. She got it. She went into the Charleston convention demanding the reverse of non-intervention as the only condition on which she would remain. She did not get it, and she went out. Alabama led the bolt at Charleston solely for the reason that the majority of the convention adopted the Alabama ultimatum of 1856! I recognize the right of the Democracy of Alabama to change their pinions just as often as they please. Very few men live who have not changed many opinions. Men who have more regard for truth than consistency will change whenever convinced of their error. Hence I do not condemn Alabama for bolting now for the very reason that she assigned for going in the Cincinnati convention in 1856; but it is not to be expected that we who accepted her ultimatum then, and have ever since observed it in good faith, should be satisfied to be denounced as enemies to the South, fór holding fast to the same principles which she then proclaimed.

I repeat, that I am willing now to stand by those terms and conditions that Alabama prescribed as her ultimatum in 1856. I must do this justice to the Democracy of Alabama: I do not believe the Democracy of that State endorse or approve of this attempt to break up the Democratic party of the Union because the party would not change the platform. I believe the people of Alabama are now as much attached to the principles of the Democratic party, as they understood them themselves and proclaimed them to the world, as they were in 1856. I do not believe that Alabama will follow Mr. Yancey now in his mad scheme to break up the Democratic party in quest of congressional intervention, any more than she did in 1848, when he attempted the same thing.

(At this point, the honorable Senator yielded to a motion to adjourn.)

WEDNESDAY, May 16, 1860.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I feel that it! is due to the Senate to express my sincere thanks for the courtesy they extended to me yesterday, in postponing the remainder of my remarks until to-day, when it was evident that I was physically exhausted. I fear that I shall be under the necessity of claiming the indulgence of the body also for the desultory manner in which I shall present my views to-day, and possibly for my inability to say all that I would like to have presented to the Senate on this question. A recurrence of a severe disease of the throat, which I contracted some years ago, in discussions in the open air in vindication of the principle of nonintervention against the assaults of the Republican party, has severely affected my voice and impaired my physical strength. However, I will proceed, as best I may, to conclude what I have to say upon the question.

In the first place, I will answer some objections that have been made to my course, and some of the evidences that have been adduced to convict me of having given a wrong construction to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The first one is the action of the Senate, my own vote included, 2

Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee. Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucey, Walker, Weller, and Williams-36."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it will be seen, from the record, that the Chase amendment was rejected, because it did not leave the people free to act on the subject, either for or against slavery, to introduce, protect, or prohibit, as they saw proper; and that these reasons were assigned at the time by southern men-Pratt of Maryland, Badger of North Carolina, and others for voting against the Chase amendment. If those who cited this amendment, and my votes upon it, against me, had read the debato as well as the amendment itself, they would have found that it proved precisely the reverse of that for which it was cited against me. The amendment offered by my colleague, in 1856, to the TOOMBS bill, and my vote against it, have been cited as evidence that it was not the intention or the understanding of any of us, when the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, to allow the people to act on this question. I will ask that the TRUMBULL amendment be also read. The bill to which that amendment was offered was a bill known as the TOOMBS bill, to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union as a State. It was not offered as an amendment to a territorial bill, but to a State bill; and, as an amendment to a State bill, was fixing a construction to a territorial bill which was to cease to operate by the admission of a State under the bill which we were then passing.

Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"And be it further enacted, That the provision in the act 'to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,' which declares it to be the true intent and meaning of said act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States,' was intended to and does confer upon or leave to the people of the Territory of Kansas full power at any time through its Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to recognize or regulate it therein."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it will be seen that the amendment of my colleague was to declare, in the bill for the admission of a State into the Union, that it was the intent of the act of Congress organizing that Territory to allow the people of the Territory either to introduce or exclude slavery as they saw proper. This amendment was rejected by the Senate on two grounds. One was, that it was irrelevant to append it to a State bill, when it was declaring the intent of a territorial bill. The other ground was, that it was an act of usurpation for the Congress of the United States to attempt to adjudicate the meaning of that territorial bill; that the question what its true intent and meaning was after it passed, belonged to the courts, and not to the Senate or House of Representatives; and the attempt of Congress thus to expound it was an act of usurpation. To prove that such was the case, I will ask to have read brief extracts from various speeches which I have collected, showing the grounds on which the Trumbull amendment was opposed. I will remark, that no man intimated, pending that

"This being my view, I shall vote against the amendment." "Mr. DOUGLAS said: The reading of the amendment inclines my mind to the belief that, in its legal effect, it is precisely the same with the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence 1 should have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting on this bill a matter that does not belong to it." * *

*

"Mr. BIGLER said: Now, sir, I am not prepared to say

what the intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I

was not a member of that Congress, I will not vote on this amendment, because I should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree, too, with the Senator from

Michigan (Mr. CASS] and, the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] that this is substantially the law as it now exists." "Mr. ToUCEY said: Now, I object to this amendment as

*

*

*

*

superfluous, nugatory; worse than that, as giving grounds

for misrepresentation. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas-Nebraska bill."

*

*

*

"Mr. BAYARD said: I have one objection to the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from linois, [MI. TRUMBULL, which to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other; and that is, it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution; and I hold that they have no right to usurp judicial power.”

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will ask the reading of the vote on the reasons assigned in debate for giving the vote.

Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

"The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amendment, resulted-yeas 11, nays 34, as follows:

"YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foote, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, and Wade-11.

"NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, and Yulee-34."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it appears from the record that all who voted for the Trumbull amendment declared by their votes that it was the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into a Territory or out of it, but to leave the people thereof to do as they pleased, subject to the Constitution. It appears from the debates, however, that all who voted against it assigned as a reason for the negative vote either that it was irrelevant, or that it was a usurpation of judicial power; but no one of them intimated or pretended it was not a true explanation of the bill. Mr. BAY RD said in his remarks that

"It is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution; and I hold that they have no right tc usurp judicial power."

Now, what act was it that was to be a usurpation of judicial power? It was the proposition of Congress to declare that, under the Nebraska bill and the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Territory had the power to introduce or exclude slavery. Mr. BAYARD said that was an act of usurpation, an act beyond the constitutional authority of the Senate; and yet we have resolutions now under debate, by