The Ohio union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1849-1854, 1854-04-26
spEEcHo or MR.. NICHOLS.
fConriuded from frst page.l

he holders Of slaves. Whetheg that day
will dawn oh us a nation Of ccnfederates;
whether il will see us in possession of our
Union unimpaired, time alone can
determine. Il never will, i The feeling
which has sanctioned these slavery com.
promisss 10 weakeaed, and the topic is
thrown into The legislative arena, 10 De,
come the sport Of Ambitious aspirations. l
impugn M man actions, sir. ! attribute
to no man corrupt motives. desire only
70 speak uf effects and consequences. Blu,
sir, / do say, that a frequent recurrence to
this CUES ion lamiliarizes the minds OF our
people with the opinions Of men as 10
consequences which may loosen the bonds
Of union, promote discard, and result 10
internal ~disssnsions, and then Gsunion.-
These, sic, have been my fears; and l
haye supported these compromises as SET
dement's not 10 be r%c-opened, because the
evils resul ing froprc.opening them over
balance the good 10 be derived from such
a course. Hence, 10 be consistent, Lean
do no less Than oppose this bill.
But. sir, you established no new princi
PIE in 1880. / say, sir, you established
no new principle. If you did, sir, where
isitf have examined the measures Of
,ha, year, and cannot find it. Where is
,he new principles Was it in the enact
ment Of the fugitive slave law! No, sir;
that principle was born with your Consii-
luton. 1t was not an original principle,
however original some OF the details OF
,ha, law may be. Wasitin the admission
of California ? Had you not admitted
Stahs belerel Was il ia the suppression
# the shave trade 10 the District of Co
lumbial Was that not N undoubted
power possessed by Congress, exercised
from. high considerations Of humanity, and
had moi Congress before prohibited The
fnreipn slave trade Was it in buying of
Texas. and organizing a territorial govern.
men, in New Mexicol You had treated
with States before, and obtained cessions
nf ticir territory. You had organized
territorial governments before, and what
had you provided for them! A govern
ment, a judiciary TO administer the laws, a
Legislature Assembly TO create local laws,
and an Executive 10 supervise the admin
ishation Of those laws. You had extend
cd over them the Constitution of the U.
States, and laws mol locally inapplicable.
You had, with a degree Of uniformity not
often found in legislation, provided nearly,
similar privileges for all Of them, except
upon The slavery question. In some you
had prohibited slavery; in others you had
said it might exist. Now, sir, what were
the features Of your territorial bills o.
1850! Let us take Utah for an example,
ask, sir, what did you do hor Utah p
You bounded the Territory /; you defined
its limits. What else? You said:
"And, when admitted as State, the sale
Teninry, or any portion of the same
shall be reseived into the Union, with Oh
without slavery, as their constitution may
prescribe al the time Of their admission
You further received 70 Congress the
right to subdivide The Territory, provided
officers for The Territory, and declared
as To the legislative power Of the Territorial
Assembly, as follows
"Ser. l.. That the Legislative power o
the General Assembly shall extend 10 al
rightful subjects Of Legislation, consisten
with The Constitution Of the United States
and tie provision OF this act, but no law
shall be passed interfering with the primary
disposal of lhe soil; no tax shall be impos'
ed upon ,he property Of The United States,
&c." "All laws passed by the
legislative Assembly and Governor Shall
be submitted 10 the Congress Of the United
States, and, if d%isappoved, shall be nul!
and of no effect"
.Sec. II. Tha, the Constitution and
laws of the United SIates are hereby ex-
tended over and declared TO be 10 fUrce in
said Territory Of Utah, SO far as the same
or any provision thereof, may be applica-
be-"
This is the whole of the compromise as
applicable TO Utah, and also ofNew Next
co-ihe great principle mel are talking
ahout-,hal which must swallow up all
others.
Mr. Chairman, in my opehing remarks
alluded to certain amendments make ia
the Missouri bill when first under discus
sion here. They prove, sir, that the desire
to limit her rights as a State; 10 control do
nestle institutions already formed, and io
compel her to emancipation before they
would admit her. Yes, sir, they sough
to make slavery The lest Of her admission
Ur exclusion, without considering tina
slavery mas, have been there, 10 some ex
tent, when we acquired The territory il
1908; that il was protected by the treaty
Of eession; and that, losiered by a congena
atty Of soil, climate, and production, j
had very naturally grown up with The Ter
riiory. TWAS not, sir, an effort 10 exclude
slavery 10 q Territory where it never ha,
planted its foot. No, sir, il was an exclu
sion designed 10 be binding on her in be
sovereign capacity as a State, after he
admission. Well, sir, Congress, Will
prohibiting slavery in Territories, neve
has made slavery The test Of a States al
mission, where slavery actually exisle
when the application was made. Neve
sir. II was not done, sir, in The case {
Missouri, or Of Arkansas. The desig
was oyerruled in The case Of Missouri.
Arkansas, the qseslions Of slavery was u
raised in the abstract. Judging from u
debates prior TO her admission, the obje
tons were founded upon an sr'icle in b
Constitution, which, it was commended, pr
vented the Legislative Assembly from al
action on tho slave question, though b
..nla nn;nha h tAnaninnna Tor emannin