Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-06-14
NEssRs. ROGERS AND pURYEAR.


The vote of these gentlemen against the Nebraska
md Kansas bill, finds but few defenders in this State
rrcuses it is true have been offered for them but
~ nress even of the most confirmed submission
der ventures fully to justify and sustain them The
Rooster, it must be admitted, would be more than
n,sased to sustain and commend them for their
course; but Mr. Badger and Mr.. Kerr voted the other
ror and that paper is bound as matter of policy
and without reference to either principle or Southern
riobs TO go with both sides. Even Gen. Dockery
sDeaks out against them, and says he would have
voted with Messrs. Badger and Kerr.
The excuse rendered by these gentlemen is that
tbe CLAYTON amendment, prohibiting foreigners from
voting in organizing and carrying forward the gov
eminent of the Territories, was not retained by the
House in the bill. This amendment, it is confessed
did not render the bill Objectionable, especially to
tbe people of this State; but we have the word of
Mr. Clngman, who has never been suspected of
wanting attachment to our peculiar interests slave
holders, that this amendment, though not wrong in
theory, would have led to no practical results and
vas moved by an. enemy of the bill merely to en-
barrass it's friends in the North" Mr.. Clingman,
therefore, voted to strike it out. 1t will not be pre-
tended that Messrs. Puryear and Rogers more
slavery question than Thomas L. Clngman.
Again: The practice of Congress in passing Ter
rtOrial bills has not been uniform this subject.
The following extract from the Washington Union
embodies the facts in the case:
Exception having been taken to our remark,
that the Nebraska bill as it passed the House. 1cith
out the Clayton amendment-which amendment was
Intended to prevent unnaturazed citizens from
loving the right of suffrage in Nebraska and Kansas
was followed out the example set in the bills or
gnzng the Territories of Utah, New Mexico, and
Washington we have examined the Statutes at Large,
and find that while we were partially mistaken in
regard to the acts organizing Utah and New Mexico
where unnaturalized citizens permitted to
Ue at the first election alone-yet that in Washing
and Oregon Territories the declaration of the ip
tnton to become citizen, and the taking of oath
support the constitution of the United States,
the only qualification necessary to constitute an
mturalzed citizen a voter. The Iowa and Wiscon-
territorial Jaws all citizens to vote at the first cleo
ton and to hold Offices. In Missouri while Terri
tory, all residents voted certain conditions not in
Noving naturalization and in Minnesota Territory
mnatuazed citizens vote after swearing to support
le constitution and declaring their intentions, &c.
every instance all residents twenty years
age voted at the first territorial elections, and in
four of the eight given naturalization was not
required to constitute q voter"
So it will be seen the action of Congress in this
ed in this connection, that the Nebraska and Kan
as bill expressly declares that it is the true intent
and meaning of this act not to zegslate sarery into
any Territory or State to erclude 1T terefrOna,
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
Mates" It is further declared that shall hold
once in said Territories who shall not have taken an
oath to support the provisions of this act; and it
therefore follows inevitably whatever may be the in
lunces brought to bear against domestic slavery,
mat no member Of the Territorial Legislature can
TOTO to prohibit slarery WITHOUT COMMITTING PERU
H. Let these facts be borne in mind-any member
The Territorial Legislature who shall vote either
prohibit OF establish slavery, will do in direct
papable opposition to the above provision, which
le was sworn to observe This, therefore, leaves
ae matter where it properly belongs, to the people
convention assembled, when they shall frame their
constitution and ask for admission into the Union
"a State This view of the question alone, it seems
Us is fall and sufficient answer to the objection
we DILL urged by Messrs. Puryear and Rogers.
we think the people of this and of Mr.. Puryears
Suct will concur with US when we say that we |
n ' quite as much confidence in the opinion of Mr..
r. 1ser On question like this as we have in that of
''SfS' Puryear and Rogers. He preferred the Clay
M amendment and expressed his regret that it was
NJ. Aen out of the bill; but he nevertheless declar
"S place in the Senate, on the Oath May, that
aendment was not paramount matter with
80 and that he "shoud not be for losing the bill
Nay 18th. s''''''' Nv ~ N'''''
A. 81 asNsrs' Puryear and Rogers Wing partizans
,..1s most decided character; and we can very
n,V suppose that even on question involving
w. S'ly our peculiar interests as people, they
O' entirely free from the influence of their an
Jpdaa ,sS and prejudces. Adeep-setted dislike of
p,sis douglas, the author of the measure, and of
h,,s' sH' Fierce, the whole weight of whose admin
an :, was thrown in its flvor may have operated
esns 1e' and to some extent influenced their
Ekr aiy when coupled with the fact that the
de- ep"f'y OF the free States was en- nasse against
at,,, . which was most likely, if passed, to
pauv IsS0lVe and destroy that party as national
Hlit. Excuses can be rendered for almost any act
he ,n out the people soiU look at events, and at
judge ssuents and surroundings of gentlemen and
~ acoOrdingy.
'''fe hereafter.
-four invite attention to the interesting letter
@na II , am Correspondent, in another col