that Dr. Gwin, who quotes Mr. Douglas' vote against the Chase amendment as conclusive evidence that the Nebraska Bill was not intended to confer on the Territorial legislature the power of introducing or excluding slavery, was present participating in these proceedings, without uttering one word of dissent or disapprobation of the speeches of Messrs. Pratt, Shields and Badger, when the latter declared that the bill as it stood without the Chase amendment, "submits the whole authority to the Territorial legislature to determine for itself," "and that if the people of these Territories choose to exclude slavery, so far from my considering it a wrong done to me or my constituents, I shall not complain of it-it is their own business."

The reader will doubtless be curious to know why it hap pened that so many of the senators who participated in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories for construing the Nebraska Bill in the same manner as Mr. Badger construed it the day before it received their votes, could have remained silent in their places without one word of dissent or protest.

The Trumbull proposition referred to by Dr. Gwin, was offered as an amendment to the bill for the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State, two years after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and was rejected solely upon the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill for the admission of a State, and not because it did not declare the true intent and meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

It was in the following words:

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 through its Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from ritory, or to recognize or regulate it therein.

The official report of the proceedings on this ame (see App. to "Cong. Globe," July 2d, 1856) shows th amendment was discussed by Senators Benjamin, Tr Fessenden, Cass, Douglas, Bigler, Toucey, Hale, Sewa Bayard, and that no one of them denied or intimated th amendment did not declare the true intent and mean the original act, and that those who opposed it did so the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill under sideration.

MR. CASS said: Now, in respect to myself, I suppose the S knows clearly my views. I believe the original act gave the Ter rial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slav This being my view, I shall vote against the amendm MR. DOUGLAS said: The reading of the amendment inclines mind to the belief, that in its legal effect it is precisely the same the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I sh have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting on bill a matter which does not belong to it.

MR. BIGLER said: Now, sir, I am not prepared to say what intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I was not a mer of that Congress. I will not vote on this amendment, beca should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree with the senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the senator Illinois (Mr. Douglas), that this is substantially the law as it exists.

MR. TOUCEY said: Now, I object to this amendment as sup ous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepres tion. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the K Nebraska Bill.

MR. BAYARD said: I have an objection to the amendment pro by the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull), which would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other: and t it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial expo by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution; and i that they have no right to usurp judicial power.

The question being taken by yeas and nays on the am ment, resulted, ayes 11, nays 34, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bell, of N. H., 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.

So the amendment was rejected.

Upon this transcript from the records we have three comments to make, which cannot fail to impress the reader.

First, That during this whole debate no senator pretended that Mr. Trumbull's amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of the Nebraska Act, according to its legal effect and plain reading.

Second, That every senator who spoke against the amendment, assigned as the sole reason for his vote, either that it was irrelevant or an attempt by Congress to usurp judicial power.

Third, That those senators who now arraign and condemn Mr. Douglas as too unsound to be chairman of the Territorial Committee for no other reason than that he now construes the Kansas-Nebraska Act precisely as he then did, listened to this debate without one word of dissent, and by silence have acquiesced in the construction which the author of the bill distinctly affirmed in their presence. Indeed, it may be said that this construction of the act was unanimously affirmed by the Senate, on this occasion-the Republicans assenting to it by their votes in favor of the amendment, and all the others by their acquiescence in the reasons assigned by Messrs. Cass, Douglas, Bayard, Bigler and Toucey for voting against it. If, however, these senators shall attempt to escape the conclusion under cover of the reasons assigned by Mr. Bayard, that the amendment was "nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition, by the Congress of the United

States, to the Constitution," and "that they have no right to usurp judicial power," with what consistency can these gentlemen meet in secret caucus and propose resolutions, to be offered in open Senate, as a platform for the Charleston Convention; thus "giving a judicial exposition," by the caucus and the Senate, to the Constitution, on the identical point which Mr. Bayard denounced as "a usurpation of judicial power," and in the justice of which denunciation they all appeared at the time to acquiesce? Would it not be well, at the next meeting of the senatorial caucus, to give a satisfactory answer to this inquiry?

CHAPTER XVII.

PROTECTION OF STATES FROM INVASION-THE SENATORIAL CAUCUS.

Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper's Ferry Invasion-Anxiety to hear him-His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, and Seward-The Caucus of Senators-Their Utopian Platform.

THE first session of the 36th Congress met on the first Monday in December, 1859. The great practical measure of the session was the proposition of Mr. Douglas, embraced in the resolution which he offered on the 16th of January, 1860, instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill to protect each State from invasion by people of other States.

A day or two before the introduction of this resolution, a sharp passage at arms took place in the Senate between Mr. Douglas and Messrs. Clay, Jeff. Davis, and Green, which is thus described by the correspondent of the "New York Herald:"

MR. PUGH, of Ohio, a sharp, keen, and plucky debater, and the right-hand man of Mr. Douglas, brought the controversy to a focus. There was a good deal of cross-firing and sharp-shooting against the doctrines and speeches of the Little Giant, from Green, Iverson, Clay, Davis, Gwin, and other southsiders, till at length the Little Giant himself was brought to the floor.

He complained of ill-health; but he never looked better in his life -never appeared fresher in the ring, and never acquitted himself more to the admiration of his friends. He was like a stag at bay, and right and left he dashed among his pursuers. It is useless here to repeat this branch of the debate. It was the feature of the day and of the session.