Thursday, July 25, 2013

"was opposed to giving the Executive funds to support despotism and usurpation"

Congressional News.

Thirty-Fourth Congress
First Session
Washington, July 28.

   The House went into Committee on the Army Appropriation bill.

   Mr. Sherman offered an amendment providing that no part of the military force of the United States shall be employed to aid in the enforcement of the alleged laws of the Legislative Assembly of Kansas, convened at the Shawnee mission, until Congress shall declare whether those laws were passed by a Legislature chosen in conformity with the organic law, and until Congress shall so declare it shall be the duty of the President to use the military force to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion and protect the persons and property of the citizens of the Territory, and on the highways of Missouri and elsewhere against unlawful seizure and search, and that the President shall disarm the
present militia, recall all the United States arms in their possession, and prevent armed men from going into the territory to disturb the public peace, or to inforce real or pretended laws.

   The chairman, Mr. Leider, decided the amendment out of order, but was overruled by two majority.

   Mr. Sherman said his amendment was just, fair and honest, and would do more for the settlement of the Kansas difficulties, than all the bills for that purpose put together.

   Mr. Stephens contended that Congress had no right to decide on the validity of the laws of Kansas. That was a question for the Judiciary, and he was for the people of the territory governing themselves,

   Mr. Grow insisted that it was the bounden duty of Congress to protect the citizens in all the rights guarantied them in the organic act. They were now controlled by despotism and usurpation, and he was not willing that the Federal troops should coerce them after they had been trampled down by marauders.

   Mr. Stephens in replying, said that he believed that the Kansas Nebraska bill was a proper one, and would have admirably answered the purpose for which it was designed, had its operation not been obstructed by those who were opposed to it in the beginning, and who had clamored against it throughout.

   Mr. Phelps remarked that Mr. Sherman's amendment was violative of the constitution, which instrument guarantied the right of the people to bear arms, and provided for the maintenance of the militia.

   Mr. Giddings was opposed to giving the Executive funds to support despotism and usurpation. He would not vote a dollar for the army without limiting the appropriations.

   Mr. Smith, of Virginia, wished the country to know that there was a party in the House who designed to stop the wheels of the Government, and force tho Senate into co-operation with a measure not practicable, and the only effect of which was revolution, and, he would add, moral treason.

   Mr. Stanton said the fairness of the amendment should not be contested. The President was found on the side of tyranny, and was the chief oppressor of the people of Kansas.

   Mr. Davidson said that the Republicans proposed attaching to this bill an objectionable feature to which they knew the Senate would not, and dared not agree. It was treason thus to pass the appropriation bills. Let them stand on their own merits.

   Mr. Warner maintained that there was no power in Congress to pass upon the validity of the laws of Kansas; this was for the Judiciary alone.

   Mr. Sherman's amendment was then adopted--yeas 80, nays 40, and the Committee then rose....

[The Sunbury American, Sunbury, Northumberland County, PA.--Saturday, August 02, 1856. New Series, Vol. 9, No. 19. Pg. 2]

No comments: