Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-12
THE NERRAsKA. BILL.

1nA 6G0AASkAA Billie
Senator Chase, in his late speech on this bill,
defines the precise grounds of opposition to
it, in the following words:
"We believe no permanent adjustment Of
that question possible, except by return to
that original policy of the fathers of the repub-
lie by which slavery was restricted within State
limits, and freedom, Uittout exception or limi-
tation, to Be secured to crery person outside
Of State limits and under the erclusiUe jtsris-
diction Of The general government
The above paragraph is pregnant with most
important evidence, revealing, as it does, the
freesoil creed, that neither the Missouri COM
promise, nor the compromise Of 1850, nor, in
deed, any compromise whatever, win be re-
garded by them as valid to enjoin a cessation
of agitation, until, without exception or limi-
tation,n the south shall be deprived of access
to the public domain, and freedom without
limitation or exception secured to every person
outside Of State limits and under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the general goyernment-that
original policy Of the fathers Of the republic"
Thus we have the question fairly and fully
presented. Those opposed to the repeal Of the
Missouri compromise, may cry peace peace !!
until they are hoarse; but the organ of free
soilism here authoritively states, that there
shall be no peace, until every title Of claim by
the south to the common enjoyment Of the
Territories be 4" crushed out;' and, still further,
that for slave to remain slave outside Of
State limits, and under the exclusive jurisdic-
ton Of the general government, is departure
from the apolicy Of the fathers Of the republic
Thus we have officially announced that the
undying watchword Of the freesoil party is
aagitation to the bitter end" 1t voluntarily
assumes any odium which may attach to agi
tation, whether it be called continuance or
revival of agitation.
What facts justify the assumption Of this po-
sition by the freesoil party?
Does it find countenance and support in the
fact, that the fathers Of the republic made
the most careful provision to secure slavery
outside State limits" BY giving their sanction,
countenance, and the national protection to
those ancestors Of the present freesoil party
to make slarery" outside State limits" and to
bring them in these " State limits" as slaves
The national flag, carrying with it "the exclu-
sive jurisdiction Of the general government"
waved its folds with sure protection over the
decks Of those vessels, in which we're those
fathers from whose loins sprang the present
freesoil party, in their work Of charity, in buy
ing, capturing, and transporting slaves, from
without Estate limits" acting, according to the
denunciations Of their freesoil children, the
pimps and panders" to the more judicious slave
holder at home. The national flag, emblazoned
with the exclusive jurisdiction of the general
government" secured" slavery, without ex-
ception or limitation, to every negro outside
of State limits who should fall into the hands
Of these I" ancestral pimps and panders' to the
home purchaser ofslaves. This was the "policy
of the fathers of the republic" as it was the
practice" Of the fathers of the freesoil party.
And now, if cargo of these " chattels" be
shipped at port within State limits, and the
floating territory" upon which they stand
moves to the ocean, 'soutside of State limits"
and bearing the flag, the evidence Of the ex-
elusive jurisdiction Of the general government"
they continue chattels, solely and Exclusively by
virtue Of that very exclusive jurisdiction Of
the general government" which this freesoii
party alleges secures freedom" emphatically.
In both the former cases, it is the " exclusive
jurisdiction Of the general government alone
which secures slarey on board this floating
territory
Again, in the national territories, over which
the general government exercises exclusive
Jurisdiction" slavery has always existed among
the Indians, admitted and protected by !" the
national exclusive jurisdiction If the national
government had no right to interfere with In
dian law to secure freedom to every one out
side State limits" interfering with the Indian
law, then slavery was municipal law Of the
Indians entitled to respect as any other NUM-
cipal law, and of course admitting, reorganiz-
ing, and protecting slavery. Thus the "policy
Of the fathers of the republic" gave counte.
nance TO slavery co.extensive with Indian pop
ulation.
II any foreign power had undertaken to cap.
ture the floating territories" upon which the
ancestors of the freesoil party were embarked,
in their congenial vocation, with their rich
cargoes of ebony chattels, and had entered as
their plea that Slavery was restricted within
State limits, and freedom secured to every per.
son outside Of State limits" would not the tex
elusive jurisdiction of the general government
have required restitution and PREPARATION of all
such parties as attempted to secure freedom
to every person outside of State limits" and
has not that exclusive national jurisdiction"
actually compelled restitution and reparation,
npon the declared and express ground that the
exclusive jurisdiction of the general govern
ment" secured slavery outside State limitsr
Such was the policy and such the practice
ofthe "fathers Of the republic" Which Of all
these members Of the freesoil party, children to
those fathers nc tho rannbl;c bav;no a half