say you dissent, and throw obstacles in the way, and get deposed for doing so; but in the end you will have to fall into the line and march after the banner of the great Napoleon of your party. I thank the senator from New York, not for the sentiments of the speech, for those I most heartily, and from the inmost recess of my soul, despise, but I thank him for the manliness displayed in making the speech. He spoke out that which he and his followers do most honestly feel and think, that slavery is ultimately, through the agency of the federal government, to be overthrown in all the Southern States. That is the issue we have to meet if the Union lasts, and no honest man ought to disguise it. And seeing this, those of us who are for the hour on watch should ill discharge our duty if we did not sound the alarm that danger was approaching. Surrounded by difficulties and dangers of this sort, I do not want to stumble into the presidental contest of 1860 without knowing where we stand. All this Kansas difficulty could have been avoided if there had been just a very little amount of firmness, and I may say honesty, at Cincinnati. Now, sir, I took the proposition there, borrowed from the report of the senator from Illinois, that no state ought to be admitted into the Union with a less population than ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty. I offered it, and it was rejected; and that meaningless nonsense put into the platform, which stands there now, that no state ought to be admitted without a sufficient population to entitle it to one representative. What is a sufficient population? It all looks well enough on the face of the paper, but when you come to analyze it, it is miserable nonsense. It was not adopted by accident; it was done by design. My proposition, which meant something, which was designed to put the principle of introducing new states on a solid basis, was rejected, and the convention substituted a proposition that new states must have a sufficient population. One man says five thousand is sufficient; another thinks fifty thousand sufficient; and I think nothing less than ninety-three thousand four hundred and twenty sufficient; and when you come to vote on it, you find no two men agreeing. If my proposition had been incorporated into the Democratic platform, we should have stood together now; Kansas would never have applied; because she would have been advertised through the dominant party here, at least, and through the President of our choice, that, until she showed the population, she could not get into the Union. I do not want any more such platforms. I want, in the next presidential election, that we shall know where we are, what we are, and where we stand. I would rather see the Democratic party sunk, never to be resurrected, than to see it successful only that one portion of it might practise a fraud on another. If we agree, then let us stand together like honest men. If we disagree, then let us separate like honest men. Mr. President, very many other thoughts crowd on my mind in this connection; but, if I am understood, I have said all that I care to say. Mr. WADE. I wish to remind the senator, before he takes his seat, that I believe he has not answered the question of the senator from Michigan; and as the senator, I believe, is the Napoleon of that side, I wish to understand him also. I want to know whether the same doctrine of protection does not as well apply to a state as to a territory; and if it does not, why not? Mr. BROWN. That was not the inquiry of the senator from Michigan, clearly, but I will tell the senator why it does not. I utterly, totally, entirely, persistently, and consistently, repudiate the whole doctrine of squatter sovereignty. By squatter sovereignty I mean territorial sovereignty. I utterly deny that there is any sovereignty in a territory. Mr. WADE. I understand the senator to contend, that inasmuch as a slave is property in a territory, the owner has a right to be protected in the territory. He says he derives that right from the Constitution of the United States, and the decision of the Supreme Court under that Constitution. That I understand to be the claim. If so, I ask why it does not apply as well to a state as to a territory? What is there in the Constitution, if it is the supreme law of the land, that prevents its operating in a state to the same extent as in a territory? Mr. BROWN. I hold, Mr. President, that each state is sovereign within its own limits; and that each for itself can establish or abolish slavery for itself. Mr. WADE. Do I understand the senator that state sovereignty dominates over the Constitution of the United States, in any instance, or can do so? Mr. BROWN. If the Constitution, in terms, guarantied slavery in the states; in other words, if the states had surrendered to the federal government the power to maintain slavery within their respective limits, then, as a matter of course, the obligation would have been upon Congress to do it; but the extent of the guarantee is not that. guarantee is, that you shall surrender fugitive slaves. The Mr. WADE. I do not wish to interrupt the senator; but I believe the Dred Scott decision makes no distinction between this right in a state and in a territory; but if it does, I should like to know from any lawyer why it does? Mr. BROWN. I shall not undertake to discuss that question at large, because it is not involved in the controversy. The Supreme Court were simply dealing with a territory; and I speak of the decision as I find it. No such hypothetical case as that presented by the senator from Ohio has arisen, or probably ever will arise; but if it does, and the Supreme Court think proper to decide it, they will doubtless give sound reasons for the decision one way or the other. It is no business of mine to foreshadow what will be their decision on a point never presented, and never likely to be presented; but, Mr. President, if nobody else wants to interrogate me, I apologize for having consumed nearly three-quarters of an hour of the time of the Senate, when I know that every minute is of vast importance; and I yield the floor. - Mr. DOUGLAS. But the senator from Mississippi says he has a right to protection. The owner of every other species of property may say he has a right to protection. The man dealing in liquors may think that, inasmuch as his stock of liquors is property, he has a right to protection. The man dealing in an inferior breed of cattle, may think he has a right to protection; but the people of the territory may think it is their interest to improve the breed of stock by discrimination against inferior breeds; and hence they may fix a higher rate of taxation on the one than on the other. Mr. BROWN. The senator from Illinois now makes a point which enables me to illustrate what I mean. I hold that the territorial legislature of Kansas-that being the territory immediately involved in this discussion has no right to enact the Maine liquor law. That is an act of sovereignty. It has the right to say that liquors carried into the territory shall be so used as that they shall not corrupt the public morals aor endanger the public safety; but the power of prohibition does not belong to a territorial legislature. So I say in reference to slave property. As I said in my opening remarks this morning, while I demand justice, I will do justice. I hold that a territorial legislature has the ight to regulate the relation between master and slave in such a manner hat the master shall not permit the slave to endanger the public safety or corrupt the public morals. That is what I mean by the power to regulate; and not seeing the point at which a court could intervene and arrest this power if it were abused, I said it never would, or rarely ever, present a case which we could get before the court and upon which we could demand its judgment. By this I understood the senator from Illinois to mean unfriendly legislation; that in the exercise of its power to regulate the relation between master and slave, it could act with such severity as effectually to exclude slavery as though it were a constitutional inhibition. That is what I meant. Again, in reply to Mr. PUGH, Mr. BROWN said: The senator from Ohio read an extract from a speech of mine, which he seemed to rely upon to sustain him in his position that I was inconsistent to-day with what I had said on a former occasion. When that speech was made, the main point in controversy was as to whether we had the right to carry our slave property to the territories, and have it protected there. To that point I spoke. That point I maintained then, as I maintain to-day; we were willing to submit to the decision of the Supreme Court. We have submitted the question, and it has been decided in our favor. I did not mean to be understood then, nor will I be understood now, that I am willing to submit to the Supreme Court on points which you can never bring before the court. The non-action of the territorial legislature can never be brought before the Supreme Court. Unfriendly legislation within the limitations of the Constitution. can never be brought before the Supreme Court. Non-action and that sort of unfriendly legislation, I have maintained to-day, would as effectually exclude us as positive action. Whatever you can get before the Supreme Court fairly and justly, I am willing to submit to them, and abide by their decision; but, of course, I am not willing to be ruled out upon points which you never can get before the court. Suppose the legislature does not act at all, how am I to have my remedy before the Supreme Court? Can I get a mandamus? Everybody knows I cannot. That is a form by which I am excluded. Then, suppose they act in an unfriendly spirit within the limitations of the Constitution; how am I to get such a case before the Supreme Court? If they legislate under the taxing power, as I pointed out this morning, and under the power to regulate the relation between master and slave; how am I to get such a case before the Supreme Court? I never can. I never meant to say I would stand only upon the decisions of the Supreme Court. I will stand upon them so far as they are rendered; and I maintain before the senator from Ohio now, that I stand where I stood when I made that speech-upon the decisions of the Supreme Court; but I could not stand upon decisions never rendered, and which never can be rendered. THE END. VALUABLE Theological, Historical, Poetical, School, Juvenile, and Miscellaneous Books, PUBLISHED BY JAMES B. SMITH & CO., 610 CHESTNUT STREET, PHILADELPHIA. Any of our Publications not for sale in the Reader's Locality, will be forwarded free by Mail on receipt of Price in Money or Postage Stamps. Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, Arnald and Lowman's Commentary on the Sacred Scriptures, 4 vols., imp. 8vo., of over 5000 pp., Fox's Book of Martyrs. The finest and best edition of this $12.00 3.00 600 Chambers's Information for the People, or Popular Encyclopedia; embracing all the branches of knowledge necessary to constitute a well informed man. 2 vols., royal 8vo., sheep, 5 00 White's History of the World, handsomely illustrated, 8vo., Josephus' Works, only large type edition published in America, 60 fine engravings, 8vo., sheep, sheep, 2.00 Todd's Johnson & Walker's Dictionary. Revised and edited by J. E. Worcester. Royal 8vo., sheep, 250 250 4. 00 2 50 The same, on very fine paper, 2 vols., 8vo., sheep, Peterson's Histories of the Wars of 1812 and Mexico, illustrated, Peterson's Complete Histories of the United States Wars, illustrated with over 400 plates on steel and wood, in ɔne volume 8vo., sheep, Peterson's History of the United States Navy, 200 engravings, 8vo., sheep, Moore's History of the Indian Wars, illustrated with numerous plain and eight highly colored engravings, 8vo., embossed, gilt, Persons desiring to act as Agents for the sale of these Books, can receive all necessary Information, by addressing as above. 1 JAS. B. SMITH & CO.'S PUBLICATIONS. Marryatt's Novels, complete, over 1100 pp., 8vo., sheep, The True Republican, with portraits of all the Presidents from do. Etiquette for Ladies, 32mo., cloth, full gilt, extra, The Beauties of Chesterfield, best edition, 18mo., The same, Turkey mor., antique, Shakspeare's Complete Works, 42 steel engravings, 8 vols. The same, morocco, full gilt, The same, half calf, (very neat) Shakspeare's Complete Works, illustrated, 12mo., cloth, Lord Byron's Poetical Works, illustrated, 8vo., sheep, The same, Turkey antique, Indian Wars of the United States, 12mo., illustrated, $2.50 1 25 2.00 3.00 1 25 The Lady at Home, by T. S. Arthur, 18mo., cloth, Health Made Easy, or Every Person their Own Doctor, 18mo., 50 50 1.00 12 62 50 50 50 50 50 2 |