Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-16

Gen. Cass Speech.
Gen. Cass has made his speech in favor
of Of the Nebraska Bill. We find in the n.
Y. Herald Of the 2sth, the following abstract
OF it.
"The Nebraska Bill was then taken up,
and Mr.. Cass, (dem. oil Mich, spoke till
half past three, defending his position on the
subject generally.
"Mr. Cass said he preferred the bill Us
originally reported, without the repeal ofthe
Missouri compromise, 10 its present shape.
He did not wish to disturb that settlement
unnecessarily, particularly as Southern Sem
ators had all avowed that it was only on alb
:. action, the South having no hope OF slave
ny going 10 the Territories. The Missouri
compromise had in its day effected the set
Element Of an exciting and dangerous con-
troversy, and he would not have proposed 10
disturb it, but the proposition having been
made, he would have to act on it. He made
a long argument in support Of his frequent
ly asserted doctrine, that all political sove-
reignity in Territories was in the people
thereof, and not in Congress. He denied
the doctrine of Southern Senators, that i'm
der the equality secured by the constitution
10 all citizens, Shareholders had the right to
carry slaves to the Territories, and the To-
cal Legislature had no power to exclude
them. Territory had now two-fold mean
ing-one as applied TO land or public do
main--the other as to political organization.
Over the latter Congress had no power.
"Over the former Congress was sovereign,
and all laws relating to the former were as
absolute in public domsin within State lin
IFS as in Territories. If the right Of slave
holders TO take their slaves and settle with
them OH public domain was secured by the
constitution, why could they not 60 with
their slaves and settle upon public domain
of the United States in Ohio or other States
as well as in the Territories? If it was q
right secured by the constitution of the Uni
ted States, no State law or constitution could
set it aside. He argued that the idea that
slaves were indispensable to the comfort
OF Southern people removing elsewhere,
could not be maintained for moment. The
territory acquired from Mexico, was now,
so far as Congressional action was concerned
in exactly the same condition respecting
slavery, as it was when acquired. The
prohibition Of it in California was not the
act of Congress, but by the exercise of the
right of the people there to determine the
question for themselves. Shareholders had
no more right TO complain OF inability to take
their property there, than others. North
ern men could not remove their farms nor
their corporate franchises, nor many Of their
dearest attachments with them TO the Ter
rtories or to California. Northern and
Southern people were alike compelled to turn
their property into money, and thus remove
it. When they got to new country North
ern and Southern men both were entitled to
do and have all things allowed TO other citi-
zens in those communities. This was the
equality secured by the constitution. He
read statistics showing how comparatively
few were shareholders. Slavery was an
evil, but he was for leaving. it with the
Southern people, and using no reproaches.
The South was too sensitive and sometimes
required Of Northern men too much. He
had voted against the provisions in the Fu-
gitive Slave Act for the abuse of habeas cor
pus, and for trial by jury Of the slave in the
place where captured; but he had urged the
simple provision that on The return of the
slave to the South he should have Jury tri.
al if he asked it. This the South unani.
mously refused and therefore it was that he
refused TO vote for the bill. The South had
no liberation for Il Northern man who did not
go for all they demanded. He would vote
for this bill. He believed the Missouri pro-
hibition unconstitutional; but, as it was to be
repealed, he would prefer TO declare it I'M
constitutional, and therefore repeal it. Un-
less this matter was declared decided upon
constitutional grounds it would never be set
tied in the public mind. His doctrine Of
Congressional non-intervention had once
been denied by Calhoun and the South. He
had lived TO see it adopted as the only safe
shield to the constitution. Thoughhe would
not offer any amendments to the bill, if 9th
ers offered them 10 carry out the principles
popular sovereignty, by giving the people
of the Territories the right to select their
own officers, he would vote for them. He
met the objection that if Congress had no
pow over the Territories, how could it del
egate 1t to the Territorial Legislature BY
asserting that Congress could delegate many
powers it could not exercise? 1t could au-
thorise the people Of territories 10 call a con-
vention and frame State constitution, while
it could not exercise that power. He elabo-
rated all these points at considerable length.