The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-05-30
HON. JAMES WHITC0MB- MOVEMENTS IN THE
SENATE.


public men and especially disagreeable is it,
when its faithful discharge may interfere with
the pleasures of social intercourse.
! In calling attention to the course Of MIR. Whit
comb Of the Senate, we need hardly say that we
are actuated by no unfriendly feeling. When
some time last year the Washington Uaiol
proclaimed that he was an opponent Of the Free
Soil movement, we questioned the accuracy of its
statement but the course Of Mr. Whitcomb in
the Senate from the time he first took his seat to
the present has been in entire accordance with
that statement And yet, he was elected as a
Free Soil man, cordially sympathizing with the
great object AMI leading policy of the Free Soil
organization, though prominent member OF The
Democratic party. In his inaugural message to
the Legislators which elected him subsequently
to the Senate, he used the following language in
reiationSa S,2yery
decided as the opinion of the people of Indi-
ana is against the institution of human slavery
yet they have ever manifested determination
not to interfere with the constitutional rights OF
any Of our sister States on this subject. They
love that glorious Union which was framed by
the COnscript Fathers Of the earlier days of the
Republic and b which, under Providence, we are
indebted for our present eminence among the ma
tons Of the earth Bm The present question dos
not regard Slapery ia tie States or IN any State. IL
rfers solely TO ne propry Of us existence heTeaer,
III terrlory nor free. THIS territory has come 10
us FREE IL is nor free, and IL my opinion should be
mqde FREE and that eoery constitutional and ieg0t
mans should be adOpted 10 continue II FREE. Nor do
Think our Sou,teYn brethern wOnld IN that case hare
ann ,peli-fouyided cause of complGud"
Such was the sentiment of the People of lndi-
ana at that time. Ii was the same Legislature,
we believe, that passed a series of resolutions
against Slavery, one of them affirming the exist
ence in the Territories Of the Mexican law pro-
hibiting Slavery, and that it was the duty of
Congress to pass q declaratory act recognising
its existence The State Democratic Convention
of Indiana held about the same time Jan. Sth,
lSls) adopted the following resolutions
" Resolued, That the institution of Slavery
ought not to be introduced into any Territory
where it does not now exist
" Resolred, That inasmuch rs New Mexico and
California are in fact and in law, free Territories
it is the duty of Congress to prevent the intro
duction of Slavery within their limits"
Nothing has oeesrr.d zinc. 70 give ground for
an inference that the People Of Indiana, or the
Democrats Of that State, have abandoned the posi-
tion then taken.
The time for the election of United States
Senator in the place of Mr. flanagan came OF
during the prevalence of this Public Sentimen
in regard to slavery. Robert Dale Owen, VIII,
was a candidate for nomination, held that tn
Mexican law prohibiting Slavery was in force il
the Territories, and that nothing moro was neces
sary than declaratory act or resolution to thi
effect. This he thought would he less obnoxiou
to the South and yet secure the object of every
friend of Freedom. But his position did not en-
tirely satisfy the Free Soil men, and they ad
dressed letter to Mr.. Whitcomb, propoundin,
the following questions;
!. Has Congress the constitutional power t.
exclude Slavery from the Territories of the Uni
ted States, while they remain Territories?
80. If such power does exist, are you in favo
of its being now exercised by Congress to exclud,
Slavery from them2"
To which he replied
1t is incontrovertible, that Slavery, there OF
elsewhere cannot exist without the sanction O
positive law | further believe that Congress
can constitutionally pass such organic laws q.
will, in their operation, prevent the passage O
any such law by the Government Of the Terri
tory. 1t follows, then, that Congress can, in my
judgment, constitutionally prevent the introduc
ton of Slavery into these Territories
In relation to your second question will add
that, still viewing Slavery AZ did nearly twenty
years ago, in report made in the Legislature Of
our State, as q drawback upon the prosperity O.
any country, would if q member, use my infu
! ence and vote for the passage of n law of the
kind referred to-that is to say, q law which will
operate to eventually prevent the introduction o.
Slavery into these Territories"
There is an ambiguity in the last paragraph
under cover of which Mr. Whitcomb might ex
cuse himself for voting for even the Omnibus
bill of Mr.. Clay, on the ground that in his opn
ion it would eventually prevent the introduction
of Slavery into the Territories But the Free
Sellers believed that he was an honest man, anC
intended to give an affirmative answer to theil
second question. Did he hold that Congress hat
power to exclude Slavery from the Territories
Yes. Was he in favor of exercising the powe,
now Mr.. Owen was in favor of deolaratory nc
affirming the extension Of the Mexican law-bu
this did not satisfy the Free Soil men woul,
I Mr.. Whitcomb go further, and say he was in favo
Of the exercise Of the constitutional power o
Congress now to prohibit Slavery in the Terrific
ries D. 81 will,n replied Mr.. Whitcomb, GUS
my influence and vote for the passage Of law o
the kind referred TO-" That is, he was under
stood to be in favor of positive prohibitory act
instead off merely dcclaratory act-and therefore
he received the votes Of the Free Soil member
Of the Legislature
Now, truth compels us to say that Mr.. Whit
comb has not only not used his Influence ane
vote for the passage of a law ofthe kind referre,
to- but that he has used both in such way a
to defeat the passage Of such a law. The polio,
of raising Compromise Committee was entirel,
through territorial bills mahom restriction as q
Slavery, by connecting them indissolubly with tn
question of admitting the free State of Caifor
MIA There was not member of Congress VIII
did not understand this. Now, during the Who'll
struggle on the motion TO raise this Committee
MIR. Whitcomb voted against Mr.. Benton an,
the friends of Slavery Restriction, with Nh
Clay and the friends of Slavery Extension
Every vote he gave was for the policy Of tn
Slavery Extensionists. The Omnibus bill wa
reported, proposing the admission of Califor
MIA, and the erection Of Territorial Govern
mcnts for Utah and New Mexico, not onl,
mthom rhe Wiima Prec'so, but prohibiting tn
Tsuaor;aI L~siaiaines, in violation Of the Cas-
doctrine Of Non-Intervention, from ereiadA.
Slapay Mr.. Douglas moved to lay the bill OF
the table, with view to take up the California
bill separately. II was test motion, but her