Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-06-22
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
Public Lands for Railroads.
SPEECH OF HON. JAS. J. LINDLEY
OF MISSOURI,

Inc House Delng IN Commlltee OF the
Whole on the State of the Union
Mr.. LINDLEY said:
! Mr.. CHAIRMAN: 1t is not my wish to dis
cuss at length the merits of the bill now be-
fore the committee, to organize the Terri
tories of Kansas and Nebraska. l wish,
however, to express my views in respect TO
some particular features Of the bill as it is
now presented for our consideration. The
important feature of this bill-that which
attracts so much attentions the clause
which repeas the act of 1920, known as the
/ Missouri compromise. For that compro-
mise, sir, as principle, have not the least
regard. l entertain some respect for it as
measure which once restored harmony and
tranquility TO a distracted and agitated
country, and did much, according to the
history of those times, TO preserve and per-
petuate our political institutions.
The bill that passes this House to organize
Kanses and Nebraska ought to be plain and
clear in all its provisions. That there is
ambiguity in the bill now before the COM
mittee, is shown by the great diversity of
opinion as to its legal effects, and that diff
ference is upon the very point it proposes to
remedy, namely, where vests the power,
and when to be exercised, of excluding or
establishing slavery in these Territories?
| 1t will remain for the courts to construe this
| law, and determine these vexed questions
| NV opinions on the subject are that the Ter
ritories are the common property of all the
States; that they ought to be thrown open for
settlement by the citizens of all the States
that every one should be permitted to go in
! l. a. la lo bo,-o ,l.1
recognized in any State Of the Union as pro-
perty; that all should be placed on an equal
footing, and be equally protected, until the
people be called upon to form government
for themselves, at which time they ought to
determine, by majority, whether slavery
shall be permitted in their State or not.
These views presented to my constituents
during my canvass, and they met with al
most universal appreciation. have seen no
reason to change my opinions since, and for
the purpose of establishing these principles
in Kansas and Nebraska, am willing to
vote for a repeal of the Missouri restriction.
What object to in this bill is that it does
not give us an open and manly, direct and
positive repeal of the restriction, with all
the legal consequences of repeal. Laws
for the protection of slavery in these Terri
tories did exist prior to the passage of the
act of 1920. and its repeal ought to revive
and put in force those pre-existing laws
When an act of Parliament is repealed, il
must be considered (except as to transac,
tions, past and closely as if Hhad nerer cr
listed. (Dwarris on Statutes, page 616.
And this is the principle that almost univer
sally obtains in regard to the repeal of a re-
pealing statute. Now, sir, the application
of this principle to the repeal Of the Mis-
q souri, restriction is precluded by claus
e known as the Badger proviso, which read
= = thus:
"Prowded, That nothing herein containe'
: shall be construed to revive or put in fore
e any law or regulation which may have ex
listed prior to the act of 9th March, 1920
is either protecting, establishing, prohibiting
or abolishing slavery"
Now, sir, if we pretend to repeal the Mis-
souri, restriction, and open that Territory t
settlement by the people of all the States, w
: ought to give to our act all the legal effect
IS and consequences of repeal. The law
v protecting slavery, which existed in tha
IS Territory before the passage of the Missoul
IS , restriction, ought to revive and be put j
!. force, and the citizen of Missouri who sha
/. remove into that Territory with his slav
d property, should have the right, under an
by virtue ofthose laws, to apply to any pre-
- per court or officer there, to protect him |
his rights when infringed, and to redres
any wrongs suffered by him in regard t
such slave property.
| further object to that proviso, because
is deceptive. The people of the North an
!, the South are each led TO believe they gain a
, advantage. Those of the North by the re
!. peal OF all laws establishing or protectin
slavery; those of the South by the repeal @
: all laws prohibiting or abolishing SLAYER
which existed in these Territories prior t
1920. Now, it has not been pretended b
!. any one that any law existed prior to 1926
I prohibiting or abolishing slavery in this Ter
: ritory, yet the people of Missouri and tn
d South are TO be induced TO believe that the
Is receive fair equivalent for the repeal G
y laws for the protection of their slave pre-
perty therein, by the repeal of abolition law
which never existed.
But, sir, it is said we are to establish
3 permanently, the great principle Of non-ir
~ tervention by Congress with slavery in tn
Territories. / have already shown that
favor that principle. But is it contained
this bill? The Badger proviso establshe
;. the principle of Intervention. 1t does not re
y y store the Territories to the condition, in re
ii spect to slavery, which they were in befor
,e any congressional action on the subject. !
T. plain repeal of the Missouri restrictio
y would do this. What statute, ask, is
d. which prevents the laws of slavery, exis
r ing in these Territories prior 10 1920, frol
being put in force-not the act of 1920, f
that is declared to be imperative and vol
and by some contended to be SO, ab initi
- Then il must be the Badger proviso, whic
he declares, in express terms, that those law
a shall not be put in force. That, sir, ! ca
u intervention.