Tuesdav, April 20, (coxtinued.) I ask again, what is it that has produced this strife, called up these denunciations, excited all th3 invective wtiich has been poured upon me, as if [ was guilty of all the crimes in the decalogue 1 I cali upon the Senate and the country to take notice of it. I ask, on what do gentlemen of the South rely for the protection of any institutions on which they place any value 1 It will be answered, upon the Constitution and the law. Well, then, if the safeguards of the Constitution are rendered inadequate to the protection of one species of property, how can it be supposed that tbcre will be protection for any? It is because I desiie to maintain in all tlieir strength and utility the safeguards of the Constitution, that I have introduced this bill for the protection of property in this District. And here Tet me teil the Senator from Alabama, that he will have my full co-operation in any measure ta prevent kidnapping. I shall expect him to redeem his pledge. Again : I am shocked to hear the honorable Senator from South Carolina denounce this bilÃ as a measure calculated to repress those citizens from the expression of their just indignation. Mr. Calhoun. If the Senator will allow me I will explain. I said no such thing. But I will take this occasion to say, that I would just as soon argÃ¼e with a maniac from Bedlam as with the Senator from New Hampshire, on this subject. Several Senators. Order ! Order ! Mr. Calhoun. 1 do not intend to correct his statements. A man who says that the people of tliis District have no right n their slaves, and that it is no robbery to take their property from them, is not entitled to be regarded as in possession of his reason. Mr. Hai.e. It is an extremely novel mode of terminating a rontroversy, by charitably throwing the mantle of manaical irresponsibility over one's antagonist! Bqt the hono.-a'uie Senator puts words into my mouth which I never used. I did not say that owners had no property in their slaves. I said that the institution exists, but I have not given any opinion upon the point to which the Senator alluded. I have never said anything from which the sentiment which he imputes to me could be inferred. It does nbt become me, I know, to measure arms with the honorable Senator from South Carolina, more particularly since he lias been so magnanimous as to give notice that he will not condescend to argue with me. But there is more than one man in this country, who has, whether justly or unjustly, long since arrived al the conclusiÃ³n, that if Ã am a maniac on the subject of slavery, I am not a monomaniac, for I am not alone in my madness. But sir, I am not respon sible here or elsewhere for the excitement that has followed the introduction of this subject. I intended sirnply to give notice of a bilÃ calculated to meet the exigency. The honorable Senator from Florida calis upon me for proof of the necessity of this legislation, and says that no violence has been committed in this District. I do not know what the gentleman calis violence. Mr. Westcott. There has been no violence except the running1 awav witli some negroes. Mr. Hale. Wel], I believe that some hundreds of individuals assembled in front of a printing office in tliis city, and assailed the building with missiles, obiiging the persons engaged in their usual employment to abandon their legal occupation. If that does not come up to the gentleman 's definiÃ¼on of violence, I do not know what does. I was desirous of introducing this subject, without an appeal to any matters wliich might be supposod to lie behind. I believe that these matters have nothing to do with the subject under conrideration. But. other gentlemen have chosen to give this subject a different direciton. Now, in the bill which I have all the honor to introduce, the provisions aro almost ideotical with the law which has been in existence in many of the Stales, and is now on the statute book of Maryland. To its enactment here exception has been taken, and 1 am quite willing that the country should know the grounds on which opposilion is made. If the subject be painful, it has not been made so by me. As to the thieats which have been made, of bloodshed anii assination, I can only say that therc have been sacrifices already, and there may be other victime, until the minds of all shall be awakenedto the convictien, that theConstitution was made as we!l for the preserv&lion of the freedom of discussion, as for the protection of th slave owners. Mr. Westcott. I should like to know of the Senalor from New Hampshirc, if he can say that any State in this Union has passed a !aw by which, in case of the abduction of a slave by an Abolition mob, the county or town is to be made responsible for the act ? Mr. Hale. I do not know sir. Mr. Westcott. It is time enough, then, when such a law is passed to protect the properly of slave owners, to talk of" a law to indemnify for the destruction of property of Abolition incendiarles. Mr. Foote. The Senator seems to suppose that I wish to decoy him to the State of Mississippi. I have attempted no such thing. - I have thought of no such thing. I have openly challenged him to present himself there or anywhere, uttering such language, and creating such an incendiary spirit as he lias manifested in the presence of this honorable body, and I have said that just punishment would be inflicted upon him for his enormous criminality. I have said, farther that, if necessary, I would aid in tho infliction of the punishmenl. opiniÃ³n is, that enlightened men vvould sanciion that punishment. But, says the Senator, that would be assassination ! I think not. t am sure that the Senator is an enemy to the onstitulion ofhis country - an enemy of one of the institutions ofhis country, which is solemnly guarantied by the organic law of the and - and 'm so far, he is a lawless person. - [ am sure, if he would go to the State of Mississippi.or any other slave Btate of this Confederaoy, and utter such language, he would justy be regarded as an incendiary in hcart and in fact, and, as such, guilty of the attempt to involve the South n bloodshed, violcnce, and desolation ; and if the arm of the law was too short, or the spirit of the law to be slumberous, I have declared that the duty of tho people whose rights svere thus put in danger would be, to infiict summary punishment upon the offender. But, says the Senator, victimshave been made, and there are other victims ready. I am sure that he could not persuade mo that he would ever be a victim. I have never deplored the death of such victims, and I never shaÃ¼ deplore it. Such officious intermeddling deserves its fate. I believe no good man, who is not a maniac, as the Senator from New Hampshire is apprehended to be, can have any sympathy for those who lawlessly interfere with the rights of others. He. howevsr, will never be a victim ! Ho is one of those gusty declaimers - a windy speaker- a Mr. Crittexden. If the gentleman will alIotv me, I rise to a question of order. Gentle men have evidently become excited, and I hear on all sidns language that is not becoming. I cali the gentleman to order for his perstnal reference to the Senator from New Hampshire. Mr. Foote. I only said, in veply to tho Romarks of the Senator from New Hampshira Mr. CiUTTENDeN. I did not hear what the Senator from New Hampshire said, but tho allusion of the gentleman from Mississippi 1 consider to be contrary to.the rules of the Senate. Mr. Foote. I am awaie of that. But such a scÃ¨ne has never occurred in the Senate - such a deadly assailment of the rights of the country. Mr. Johnson, of Maryland. Has the Chair decided ? Mr. Foote. Let noy words be taken down. The Presiding Officer. In the opinio of the Chair, the gentleman from Mississippi is Tiot in order. Mr. Foote. What portion of my rematkj g not in order ? The Presiding Officer. The gentleman is aware that the question of order is not debatable. Mr. Westcott. I ask whether the word objected to are not, according to the rule, to be reduced towritingl Mr. Foote. But the Senator from New Humpshire has aid, that if I would visit there.I would be treated to an argument. Why, I would not argue with him ! What right have they to argue on this point t It is not & matter with which they stand in the least connected. They have no rights of property of this description, and I rejoiee to be able to say that a large proportion of the intelligent and patriotic people of New Hampshire do not concurin the views expressed by the Senator this morning. They take the ground that the People of the United States, the Constitution, and the Union, have guaramied the rights of the South connected with this property, and that the people of New Hampshire have no right at all to meddle with the subject. Why, is it not a fact, that gentlemen, members of this body, amongst them the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, whom I regret not to see in his place, are known to be more or less hoslile to the institution of domestic slavery, but have never entertained the doctrine, that the Congress of the United State has any jurisdiction whatever over the subject. They have held that any attempt, directly or indirectly, to effect abolition or to encouraca abolition by Congressional legislation, is at war with the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Mr. Hale. Will the Senator allow me to inquire if he can point out a single instance in which I have made any aggression upon the rights of property in the South 1 Mr. Foote. That is the very thing I am about to show. When the Senator from New Hampshire undertakes to assert that those Northern men who do not concur with him are "cravens," he uses language of false and scurrilous import. It is not the fact that his language will be reechoed in any respeclable neighborhood in New England. His sentiments will find no response orapprovalin any enlightened vicinage in New England, and therefore he has no right to say that those who are faithful to the principies of the Consiitution, and fail to re-echo the fierce.fanatical, and factious declarations of the Senator, are " cravens" in heart, and deficiÃ«nt in any of the noble sentiments which characterize high spirited republicana. Mr. Hale. I did not use such language. Mr. Foote. Did the Senator not uso ths word " craven ]" Mr. Hale. If the Senator will allow me, I will inform him, that when the Senator from South Carolina remarked that he supposed it was thouglit that the South had lost all feelin, I replied by asking if it was supposed that the North had no sensibility, that we had bowed our faces to the earth, with our backs to the sun, and submitted to the lash so long that we dare not look up ? Mr, Foote. The declarations of the Senator from New Hampshire just amount lo this - that if he met me on the higliway, and, addressing me gravely or humorously, (for he ig quite a hurnorous personage,) shoÃ¼ld say, I de. sign to take that horse which is now in your possession, and then announce that he wished to enter into an argument with me, as to whether I should prefer that the animal shoul-d bo stolen from the stable or taken from me on tho road, how could I meet such a proposition ? Why. I should say to him. either you are a maniac, or, if sane, you are a knave. And yet this very case is now before usT The Senator from New Hampshire introduces a bilÃ obviously intended to rob the people of the District of their slaves. I will read it, and show that such is the import of the bilÃ. I do not know anything about the paper to which reference has been made. It has been sent lo me, as to other Senators, during the winter, but I always refrain from it. The editor of it may be an intelligent man. I havo heard that he is. He is certainly an abolitionst. It may be that he has not in liis paper openly avowed.asthe Senator from New Hampshire seems very plainly to indÃcate that ho bas approved of this late attempt to steal the slaves from this District. But the publication of such a paper has tended to encourage such movernents. (CO.VTINIED ON FOURTH tAUT. (CONTINUED PROM FIKST PAGE.) Mr, Hale. When did I avow tliat I approved of thia movement? Mr. Foote. I will showitfrom this bill. - I challenge the Senator to produce any such itatute from the statute book of any State of this Union 1 Mr. Hale. I have said that the bill is in ubstance identical with oneofthe statntes of the State of Maryland. I have that stattue before me, and will hand it to the Senator. Mr. Johnson, ofMaryland. Allow me to see it. Mr Foote. How are we to understand the Senator ? He will not acknowlectge that his object is to encourage such conduct, and he shuns the responsibility. Wlien we charge upon liim, that hehimselfhas brealhed, in the course of liis harangue of this raorning, the ame spirit which has characteiized this act, he says, most mildly and quietly, " By no rneans ;I have only attempted to introduce a bill conespondinff substantially with the law on the statute books of most of the States of the confederacy." And the Senator supposes that all of us are perfectly demented or do not know the nature of the case, the cirenrnstances or the motives which have actuated the Senator. Will he undertake to aseit that he would have ever thought of such a bill, if these slaves had not been abducted from the District in opposition to the consent of their owners, by the parties engaged in this mvrauding expedition ? Hecannotdeny it ; and therefore I am authorized to come (o the conclusiÃ³n, that he inlroduced the bill for the purpose of covering and protecting that act, and encouraging similar acts in future. What is the phiaseology of the bill ? [The honorable Senator here read the bill] Who (oubis now, the object of the Senator from New-Hampshire was to secure the Captains of vessels and others engaged in any attempts hy violence to capture and steal the slaves of this District ? No man can doubt it. Then, I ask, have I used language too harsh l and is t not a fart, that the Senator is endeavoring to evade a responsibility which he is not willing to acknowledge. Mr. Hale. Will the Senator glve way tbr a moment ? I will read an extract from the law of Maryland to which I referred. Will ihe Senator be good enough to look at my bill white I read 1 "Au net rclntiug lo Kiol. " Sec. 1. Be k enactcd by the General Assembly of Mary latid, Tliat from and after the passage o! ibis act, ifany couniy or incorporated town or city ofthis State, any churcb, chape!, or convent, any dwelling-house, any house used or designed by any person, or by any body politie or corporate, as a place for the transaction of business or deposite of property, any ship, ship yard, or lumbe yard, any barn, stable, or other out-house, o any articles of personal properly, shall be in jured or destroyed, or ifany property therein or thereon shall be taken avvay, injured, or de stroyed, by any riototis or tumultuous assem Mage ol'people, the full aniount of the dam aga sliall be recoverable by the sufterer o sufferers, by suit at law against the county town, or city, vvithin whosejurisdiction such riot or tumult occurred. Provided, however That no such liability shall be incurred by such county, incorporaled town, or city, un less the authorilies thereof shall have hac good reason to believe that such riot or tumultuous assemblage was about to take place or, having taken place, should have had notice of the same in time to prevent said injurj or destruction, either by their own pÃ³lice or with the aid of the citizens of such county town, or city ; it being the iniention of this act, that no such liability shall be devolvec on such county, lown, or city, unless the authorities thereof, having notice, have also the ability, of themselves or ivhih their own citizens, to prevent said injury. Provided, further, That in no case shall indemnity be received where it shall be satisfactorily provee that the civil authorities and citizens of san: county, town, or city, when called en by t'ie civil authorities thereof, have used all reasonable diligence and all the powers intrustec to them for ihe prevention or suppression o such riotous or unlawful assemblies. " Sec. 2. And be it enactcd, That in any suit instituted under this act, the plaintifFor plaintiffs muy declare generally, and give the special matter in evidence." The honorable Senator will surely now do me the justice to say, that the bill was noÃ¯ draughted with reference to any particular case, such as that to which he refers. I had not the remotest reference to the protection of individuals conerned in transactions of that character ; hut f I should undertake to say that I had not reference to demonstrations growing out of that transaction, I should be what was false, forit was these demoostratiofta which induced me to introduce the bill. Mr. Foote. In one breath the Senator makes two directly contradictory assertions. He says that he did not draw the bill in reference to ibis case, and in the same breath declares that he did. He disclaims in one moment that which he avows in the next ! I am sorry that I have occupied the attention of the Senate so long. I have feit deeply on this subject. We have witnessed this morning the first attempt on this floor o viÃ³late the constitutional rights of the South, and I hope it will be the last. I trust that the indignation of the country will be so aroused, that even in the quarter of the country from which he comes, the Senator from New Hampshire, although his sensibilities are not very approachable, will be made to feel ashamed of his conduct. Mr. Mangum. It has been now about fourteen years, I beÃ¼ve, since the Senate very wisely, by the concurrence of the ablest and most distinguished men on both sides, came to the resolulion to exelude discussion upon the inflaming topic of slavery ; and that when a')olition petitions were presented, upon the question of reception, a motiori should beentenaiued - which motion if not debatable an I the vote takenupon it to lay the motion for reception upon the table. There has been, ever since this rule wasestablished, a steady and uniform adherance to it ; but lam sorry to perceive that there is latterly a disposition -rcanifesting italf to depart from the salutary ' rule of action which the Senate tlius wisely prescribed foritself. Upon this qiiestion of slavery we know there are different opinions entertained in different quirlers of the Union. I stand here,representing the interests of one portion of thal Union ; but I could not, ifl would, bring myself to a state of excitemnt and alarm, in consequence of any menaces that migbt be thrown out. I stand upon the constitutional compromises ; and, while I would not invade the rights of other, I am very sure that the sound portion of the community will not invade our rights. Why should we pursue this discussion ? Is it believed that we are to be reasoned out of our rights 1 Are we to be reasoned out of our convictions? No, sir. Then why discuss the subject ? Why not staud upon our rights, upon our conslitutional compromises? Why not stand tbus perfectly passionless, but prepared to defend them when tbey stmÃ¯l be assailed ? But are they to be assailed ? Sir, nothing has occured during this session, that has afforded nie more suisfaciion, ihan to hear,froin some of the ablest and most diitinguislied men in this Union, the dectaration, that whilst they are opposed to an extensiÃ³n of the area of slavery, they are not disposed to trample upon the compromisos of ihe Constitution. This is our strengih. It is lo be found in the patrioiism of those who love the institutions of our country better than party. I believe the great body ol the people are prepared to stand upon tha compromises of the Constitution. This is our sirength. It is to be found in the patrioiism of those who love the institutions of our counlry better than party. I believe the great body of ihe people are prepared to stand upon the compromises of the Constitution. It is upon this gronnd that I stand content and passionless ; and if I know myself, I shall ever continue to do so. Sir no good can resull froin this discussion. I shall vote against the reception of the bill at this lime. And why? Because I think that the occasion which is selected for its introduction is a very unhappy one. It seems to grow out of the occurrence.5 of an umvarrantablo trespass recently commilted upon the rights of the citizens of this District, without being direcied to the prevention of such aggressions in future, but, on the contrary, having for its object the suppression of themanifestations of the feelings of indignation which such acts naturally crÃ©ate. We, who are the only legislators for the District of Columbia, are not informed of their wants and wishes in regard to legislation upon this subject. If the people of this District require any other laws than they already have, for the purpose of protecting their property against unlawful violence, let them indÃcate to us their wishes; and I shall be ready to lend a willing ear to their request, and to aid in passing such a law as in my judgement may be necessary for their protection. If, on the other hand, the citizens of this District should require other and more penal laws for the purpose of protecting theii slave property, I shall be as ready to vote for a bill for that purpose. But I shall nevervote for the one nor the other, when I find them pressed forward by gentlemen of extreme opinions - gentlemen from remÃ³te portions of the Union, having few feelings in common with the citizens of the District. Sii-, upon these subjects I am accustomec to look to the silent operation ofthe law for the proteclion of all our rights. In (he State from whicli I canie, there is no excitemen with regard to these subjects. If I knovv anylhing of the character of that loyal, steady fixed, a.id moderÃ³te State, there is not ain no State Ãn the Union which vvill hold to her principies and her rights with more firmness than that Siate. But we appeal to the silent operation ofthe law ; we knovv nothing of inob law, orof Lynch law; weknow nothing of exereisesofthis description. Although I have lived tobe an oÃd man, most ofthe time n North Carolina, I have never seeii anything in that State approximating even to a spirit of popular tumult; Mr. Foote. Wil! the honorable Senator allo'v me to ask him whelher, in the case o a conspiracy to excite insurrection amongthe slaves, it would not, n bis opiniÃ³n, justify mob proceedings ? Mr. MaxgÃ¼m. Oh! my dear sir, in former years we had a compen lious mode of disposing of such cases. We have now a mode equally certain, though not so cornpondious. Upon a matter of that nature, we take a strong ground. But I am not be driven hastily inlo legislation that is proposed by gentlemenwho entertain extreme opinions on eilher side. I am accustomed to look to the people ofthe District for an exposition of their wants in regard to legislation. They necessarily understand them better than we can do. Upon their suggestion, I am prepared to act either in providing penal enactments forthe protection of their slave property, or for protecting other descriptions of properly froii mob violence. I do not intend to enter into the question as to the propriety of making property holders, to some extent, answerable for any damage that may accrue Trom such violence, vvhere they have a pÃ³lice n exis'.ence. I understand that in Maryland they have such a law, applicable to towns and cites where they have a pÃ³lice. Butentertaining the views I do, believing that this novement is vvholly inexpedient on this occasion - having no evidence that it would be iroper on any occasion, but perceiving that he proposed measure has grown out of excitement, 1 move that motion for leave to inroduce the bilÃ lie upon the table, and upon lint question I ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. Calhoun. Will the Senator be good enough to withdraw that motion for a moment ? Mr. Manoum. Certainly. Mr. Calhoun. If there is any responsi)liiy in regard to ibis question, thal respon)i!ity is on me. Mr. Mangum. No, sir, I do not take it o. I feel that the responsibility is upon '.lie nopportuno presentinent of a bilÃ of tliis sort o soon after the transactions vvhich have reently taken place in this District. That is my notion. I think ihe responsibility is upon the introducing of such a raeasure at a liiue vvhen excitement exists all around us. Mr. Calhoun. lam very glad tohearthat such is the opiniÃ³n of the honorable Senator but I disagree with my worthy IViend, the Senator from Norlh Carolina, in one particular. I do not look upon a state of excitement as a dangerous state. On the contrary I look upon it as having often a most wholesome tendency. The state to be apprehended as dangerous in any comtnunity is this : that vvhen there is a great and grovving evil in existence, the communiiy should be in a cold and apathetic state. Nations are much more apt to perish in consequence of a cold and negligent state, than through the existence of heat and excitement. Nor do I agree with the Senator from North Carolina in thinking that this is Rn r.nalagous case to that of the question as to the reception of pelitions on the subject of slavery, for we all know that in reference to the latter it was a question vvhcther the SeÃ±ale was bound to receive petitions relating to that subject or not. Now, here is a case in which there is no doubt whatever. All admit that the question of granÃ¼ng leave is a question depending upon the voice of the Senate as a maller ofdiscretion - there is no queslion of right whateyer, Now, I submit to the Senator from North Carolina, whether, under the circumstances, a bilÃ of this kind, introduced at such a moment to subject the worthy citizens of this district to a high penalty, without containing a single clause lor the punishment of those who commit outrages upon ihem and deprive them of their property, without a single expression against such marauders, must not be considered a most extraordinary measure, let it come from whatsoever quarter it may. Can any man doubt that whether, intended or not, the object of the bilÃ (as I said in my chair) is this : to disarm the worthy citizens of this District, so as to prevent them from defending their property, and to arm robbers. That is the whole amount of it. The Congress of this Union is the Legislature of the District of Columbia ; and what is our duty as such on this occasion? Is to protect these our constituents who have no other protection than ourselves. It is our duty to stand forward in their behalf, when the extraordinary spectacle is piesented to us of a vessel coming to our wharves, under the color of commerce, and of the men belonging to that vessel silently seducing away our slaves, and getting nearly a hundred of them on board, and then moving off with them under cover of the night, in order to com'ey them beyond our reach. What is our duty under such eircuuistances ? Is it not to take up the subject, as I trust the commitleo on Judiciary will do, and pass a bilÃ containthe highest penalties known to the law againsf persons who are guilty of acts like these? I differ from my honorable friend from North Carolina, in this respect. He seems think that the proper mode of meetin this great question of diÃFerence between the ivvo sections of the Union is to let it go on silently not to nolice it all, to have no excitement about it. I differ from him altogether. I have examined this subject wirh as much care as my abiÃ¼iies would enable me, and il I am not greatly deceived, il I have any capacity to perceive what is coming, Igive it as my most candid opiniÃ³n, that il' ibis course is pursued on our part, and the activity of those Ã¯nHuences on the other side be pennitted lo go on, the result of the whole will be, that we shall have Si. Domingo over aain. Yes and worse than that. Now, sir, we bave been asleep ; and so Jar from the thing beingslationary, it is advancing rapidly from year lo year. What has taken place within the last lew weeks in the Legislature of New York ? There is a provisiÃ³n in the constitution protective of the rihts of the South on this subject - and what is it ? That the State stiall deliver up fugitive slaves that are found wiihin their limits. It s a stipuiation in tne naiure 01 an extiadition treaty. I mean a treaty Ãof delivering up fugilives from justtce. JNovv vviwt tluiy does ibis impose upon the Otates of this Union ? It imposeses upon thein, upon the known principies of tlie lavv ot nations, an active co-operation on the pari ol their cilizens and magistrales in seizing and delivering up slaves who have escaped frorn their owners. What has been done by tha Legislatura of New York ? They have passed a law - I understand almost unanimously there being but two votes against il-making it penal lor a citizen of thai state even 10 aid the Federal officers in seizing and delivering up slaves. They do not co-operaie, they not only do not stand neutral, but they take positive and active measures to violate the Constiution and to trample upon the laws of the Union ; and yet we are told that things are going on very vvell, and will go on , il" we only let them alone ; that the evil will cure itself. This is what has been done in the State of New York. The only stipulation in the Constitution vvhich confers any benefit upon us is, without the least regard to faith, trodden in the dust. And New York stands not alone in this matter; many other States have adopted similar enactments. Pennsyivania, at the session before last, adopted one, not oing to the extreme, but not faliing greatly short of it. And what has taken place under that law ? A most worthy citizen of Maryland, upon bis attempting to rec.apture bis slave, is murdered - I believe that is the proper term - and the perpetrator goes unpiinished. There was a trial and some one may have been found guilty but nolhiog was done. I could go on and consume the whole day in tracing step by step, the course by vvhich every stipulation in favor of this description has been set at naught n the Northern States. Now, il' this is the "act, I put it gravely and seriously to our jrethren of the JNorlhern States, can this hing go on ? lsitdesirable that it should be uppressed ? Is it desirable that the South should be kept in iguorance of all this? I )ut these questioni. No, no ! Our very inaction is construed into one of two things - niJifference or timidity. And it thi construcion vvhich has producen this bold and rapid novemenl towards the ultÃmate cousumation of all this. And vvhy do we stand and do nothing ? I will teil vou why. Because the press of this Union for some reason or other does not choose to notice the thing. One section does not know whatthe other section is doing. The Soutn does not know the huncfredth part of all that has been done in all these places. Now since this occurrence has taken place, a suitable occasion is presented for gentlemen to risehere and teil the whole Union what is doing. It is for the interest of the North as well as the South. I do not stand here as a Southern man. I stand here as a member of one of the branches of the Legislauire of the Union - loving the whole, and desiring to save the whole. - How are you to do it ? It can be saved only byjustice; and howisjustice tobe done? By fullfilrnent of the stipulations of the Constitution. I ask no more - as I know myself I would not ask o partiÃ«le that did not belong to iis, either in our idividual or confederated character. But less than that, I never wish totake. Sir, I hold equality amonglhe confederated States to be the highest point; and any portion of the confederaled States who shall permit thernselves to sink to a point of nferiority, not defending what really belongs lothem.as mernbers, sign their own perdition, and signingthat, lay the foundation for the dastruction of the whole. Upon the just maintainance of our rights, not only our safety depends, but the existence of this glorious Union of ours And I hold that man responsible, and that State responsible, who do not raise a voice againstevery knovvn and clear infraction of the stipulations of the Constitulion in their favor. This is a proper occasion, and I hope there vvill be a full expression upon it. I hope my friend frorn North Carolina will reconsider his motion and not press it! Let us meet the question at once.