Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-03-25
DAILY VIRGINIAN.
'saTisHD1AY M0RNISC. MARCH %. 1851



character which entities them to be laid before
the country. and to be plssed on record for tature
reference, They were submitted IN the Senate
the 20th inst.
REMARKS OF MR.. BApGtR.
Mr.. Badger said he had expected to receive,and
present to the Senate to day. reaenstranee n
gaiasi the Nebraska bin freR his own constitu-
ents, but a. 1t bad not arrived he asked leave of
the Senate now to present some remarks he had
designed max * IN presenting the remanstranee.
He desired IL carr,'ct two mistakes which had got
abroad N the community relaiiv. Ia his anend-
ment 10 the Nebraska bill providing against The
revival of the cid Louisiana Law Of slavery, On
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise IL had
been supposed by some that this presiso gave an
effect TO the bill which il would not have without
IL, that except for the protiso the I'D Louisiana
law would have been revived 10y the dill. sone
of his friends Of opinion that this amend
lnenf therefore. had given an unftvorable tone 10
Southern sentiment regarding the bill, aud he de-
sired 10 explain away the view which hal been
taken Of it. lie had on a former occasion, said,
as be said now. that in his upaion a. profess
sionnl man the bill IL stood befor his amend
ment was adopted, left the territories entirely
without any law whatever on the subject Of Slnve-
ry that il neither revived the old Louisiana law,
nor admitted mr. prohibited the establishment Of
Slavery bat as there were some Senators whose
minds were not free from doubt un thut subject,
feeling the desire that perfect frankness should
haraeferize this and all other acts of legislation
and wifil view of putting an end 20 the possible
~ of misunderstanding, he proposed tn mend
ment, declaring IN express terms, that the bill
should not revive any law existing in the territory
prior 10 the act of 1870. Mr.. Badger proceeded
with the argument to show that this amendment
did not change the force of the bill, with respect
to slavery in the territories The terms of the
act repealed the prohibition clause in the Mis-
sourisact. He maintained that this repeal did not
revive the prior law. He knew that the common
Law, as laid down in the words of Blackstone,
was that IL a statute that repeats statute i IL
self repealed, the original statute is revived with
out any form of words efieoting that revival in
terms. Baekstone's proposition Is that there is
no necessity for formal words, for the purpose Of
reyising the original act but il was impossible
90 consider the terms of the rule laid down by
Blackstone aud the statute which he adduces in
illustration of his rule, without perceiving that
the intent TO revive pre.exsting law must be
evident, else the revival could not occur. Where
a law is repealed and the repeating statute is sub
sequently repealed, il is matter of construction.
whether the former law is set up or not. There
fore IL was established rule that there could be
no revival of previous law against an express
declaration. There was no court IN America
that would have held that the repeal Of the Mis-
sour Compromise, by this act reported from
the Committee. would have revived any law--thc
present act expressly declaring that il was the
intention, by this repeal. 10 leave the subject
covered by the original law to the decision of the
people themselves. 1t was thought by some Of
his Southern friends, thai by voting for this law
he had conceded the doctrine of squatter soyer-
eighty. He did not concur in, nor admi the eA
istenee Of any such right. He held that the
power of Congress over q g territories was plen-
AIRY. We had right TO exercise such dominion
over the territories as, in the judgment of Con
gress, should be wise, just and reasonable. At
the close ID the specific enumeration of the pow.
ers OF Congress. general power war given 10
exercise all other powers necessary 10 carry out
the constitution. In the Nebraska bill, Congress
simply desires in this instance 10 confer the right
Of self legislation the subject OF slavery e
trey upon the people of the territories although
he admitted that Congress bad Alright Ia establish
any sort OF government for the territories that it
pleased, they eere bound Ia exercise that power
upon considerations of reason, aud Justice, aud
kindness: and IT was upon these considerations
he had voted for the bill When he gave his as
sent to the bill. he did not consider that he was
giving his consent TO the doctrine OF squatter
sovereignty and of admitting that the people of
these territories had any inherent right 10 govern
the territories themselves over and above, and
paramount 10, the authority of Congress- The
bill implies only that under the circumstances
in which the people of those territories were
placed, II was proper and right that they should
be allowed 10 control their own territorial affairs
REMARKS OF MIR. BurIER
MIR. Butler considered that, by the Nebraska
bill, Congress had conferred the legal power Of
legislation upon all uhjects upon the people of
the territories. Was there IA reasonable man
who would say il intended 10 revive the French
or Spanish law of slavery. by desuetude if
nothing else, these laws had gone out of effect
If a custom grew up under the Missouri Com
promise by which these laws were disregaroed
they became a dead letter This act is in some
respects better bill than the Clayton Compron-
Use, IN which his colleague tMr Calhoun) ncqcies-
ced. Mr.. Calhoun's doctrine was, that the Con
sutuuon OF the United States went proprio zig
ore into all territories, and repealed any laws then
IN force there. MIR. Calhoun remarked to him
on one occasion, that if il should be decided that
the Territory of the United States was to Ice ap-
propriated for the benefit of one portion of the
country aone,it would give rise to u contest such
as never before agitated the nation. Let South
ern men take the alternative of this bill, or keep
The Missouri Compromise line in force. Under
tins bill the South obtained some ghtsunder the
missouri Compromise they had none. He was of
opinion that the operation OF the bill would be
that the Territorial Legislature would take no
action on the subject, but leave il to tho Ameri-
can citizens who resided in the Territory to act
as they please in regard to the introduction of
slaves This bill was recognition that Con-
gress had exclusive jurisdiction on the subject of
territorial governments, and that Congress could
give the territories no more than was authorized
by the constitution of the L. States. If there
was any question TO be made, in regard to the
freedom OF slave in these Territories and he
should demand his freedom on this ground, that
ne was free under territorial law, the answer
OF the master would be that he held the slave. as
property, under higher law than the enactment