Washington sentinel., 1854-03-08

and before the subject had undergone dis
cussion.
| ] think, sir, that my record upon the subjec,
OF the Missouri compromise cannot be i'm
peached. When, in the House of Represents
| tives / sustained it, as the debates, &C., will
| show, AS long as there was any hope of sus
tanning it against the assaults of the Wilmot-
proviso men, not because | believed it was
right. to adopt it originally, but because it had
been acquiesced in | never believed that
Congress had any power to say that slavery
should forever be excluded from Territory /;
for when Territory becomes State she has q
right to abolish or authorize slavery. The
question before Congress in 1920 was the adj
mission of Missouri not dividing territory out
side of her proposed limits. But wished to
keep what some supposed was plighted faith,
and preserve a good name for Congress. A
good character is as valuable to government
as an individual. 1t is that for which we all live,
for which we all act, and for which, trust and
believe, most Of us would die.
But, sir, is not the bill correct in principle,
and will it not work as well in practice as any
other which can be adopted? Does it not
give the people of the Territories the right to
regulate their own domestic affairs in any way
they please, not in violation of the Constitu-
-
to give protection to property in slaves, or say
that the local Legislature shall not pass laws
upon the subject Of slavery. We do not say
whether the Shareholder can or cannot hold
slave there by virtue of the Constitution that
Is left an open question, to be decided by the
Supreme Court of the United States And
who can object to that? But, sir, if we put
provision in the bill, that up to the time of
the formation of State constitution the own
ers Of slaves should lawfully hold them there,
it would be of no service to them, because
there would be no local police; so that the
mere refusal of the territorial legislature to pro-
vide for the manner in which they shall be
held, and sold, and treated, and penalties for
karboring them &c, would effectually exclude
them.
But it is said that by repeating the Missouri
compromise the old French law, which author
ICES slavery, would be revived; but, sir, such is
not the fact because the bill expressly says that
it is the true intent and meaning of the act, not
to legislate slavery into. the Territory, but if
there should be any doubt on this point, it can
and will be made clear by an amendment.
What, then, is there in this bill to which any
reasonable man can object? The people who
go into the Territories have as much intelli-
geuce as those they leave in the old States, and
are as capable Of governing themselves. 1t is
based upon the great principle which lays at
the foundation OF our government, to wit: the
right and and the ability of the people to gov
ern themselves The Wilmot proviso is not in
it, nor is there authority given to hold slaves
1t is, therefore, compromised gives and
takes. We all know with what zeal southern
men claim the right to take and hold their
slaves in any territory of the United States.
They say, and not without truth and reason,
that the territories Of the United States were
obtained by the common blood or treasury of the
United States. That they helped to obtain
them, and that therefore they should not be ex-
cluded from them, and that to prevent them
from taking their property with them is to ex-
clude them, and give monopoly to the north.
Fifteen of the States of this Union entertain
these sentiments. Well, sir, they now say as
they did in 1850, when the compromise meas
ures were passed, "We do not ask any federal
legislation for our protection we do no. ask
you to restrain the territorial Legislature (which,
of course, must be subordinate affair." from
excluding slavery until State constitution is
formed Now, sir, it seems to me this is plac.
ing all the citizens of the United States upon
an equal footing, and with equals rights, under
the Constitution, in the territories.
think, therefore, that have sustained the
positions which ! assumed.
On the Sd of June, 1S4S, l made speech in
the House of Representatives, in which / ad-
vanced the same views. Indeed, sir, then
laid down the cornerstone, and advanced the
cardinal ideas upon which the territorial bills
of 1850 and this bill are framed. ! do not
know that ! can improve the statement or argu-
ment which then made. ] will therefore con-
clude what now have to say by reading the
beginning and the conclusion of the remarks /
then made:
The proposition which it is my main purpose |
TO state and enforce, is this: that the question of
slavery mot being original one) the rights ofthe
negroes whether slave free, in the States or in
the Territories, ought TO be left to the good sense
the conscience, the patriotism, and philanthropy
OF those in whose midst it exists, or they reside, |
In other words, that inasmuch we cannot ad- |
nit the blacks 10 terms OF political or social equal
ity, and all the States have jurisdiction in regard
to them, the compromises of the Constitution as |
well as sound policy, enJoin neutrality upon the
part of Congress. The question of slavery and
the rights of shareholders settled in three art-
cles Of the Constitution. We cannot add TO, or
take from, those rights. Heretofore, the great com
plant upon the part of the south was. that the |
northern representatives We're attempting TO in
wade their constitutional rights by Congressional
action. The whole subject, in my opinion, should
be left 10 the Judiciary and the State, and terrific
rial conventions, and legislatures. Soil and eli.
mate have more 10 do with the extension of slave
ry than legislative enactments The people Of the
Territories have representatives in Congress
who can vote; and the great American rule is
that communities should not be governed by laws
in the making Of which they did not participate
Il any other principle is recognized, the represen-
tatve is not responsible 10 the people for the laws
he may make for their government. The theory |
Of our government is, that the people are capable
of selfgovernment.
"Iwill also attempt TO show that the northern as
well as the southern States-particuarly the |
norlhern-should at any rate be content with the |
Missouri compromise. (whaever may be thought
of the power to adopt il originally; which, if
adhered to in good faith as peace measure, as
il was and il. would tend 10 and produce the same
result as the doctrine Of neutrality The Missouri
compromise act prohibits slavery north of 36o 3O',
and leaves the people free 10 adoptor reject it, as
they may think proper, south Of that line"
" II seems 10 me, therefore, that we should for
bear TO interfere with the questions of slavery,
or take incpienl steps in relation thereto in the
Territories about 10 be acquired. Territorial gov