Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-06-08


lutte veto power; that all the acts of the Terri
torial Legislature were subjected to the revision
of Congress and that, therefore, the BILL which
professed to establish popular sovereignty, sub
iected every act of the People, through their
Legislature, to the double veto of the appointee
of the President and of Congress. In these re-
spects, the bill has received some amendment
But, sir, the power, although abridged, still
remains. The legislative authority Of the Ter
ritory is invested, not in legislature elscted by
the people, but in the Governor and Legislature.
This bill invests the Governor with legislative
power, equal to that of one-third of the men,
bors in each branch of the Legislature. His
veto, or disapproval, will arrest the passage of
any act which cannot command the sanction Of
two thirds of each branch, notwithstanding the
veto. Add to this direct power of the veto, the
influence which the patronage and station Of the
Governor confers, and it is easily seen that few
acts, Objectionable to him, are likely to receive
the Legislative sanction.
Then, sir, every act of the Legislature has to
pass the ordeal of the Judiciary, and must de-
pend for its execution, in part at least, not only
upon the Governor, but upon the Secretary, the
District Attorney and the Marshal. Now, sir,
in this bill, the advocates of which profess so
much respect for the doctrines of self-govern-
ment. one would naturally expect to find these
officers made elective by the people. But does
tho bill in fact contain any such provision Not
at all. fhe President is to appoint the Governor,
who is to exercise the veto power the Plesi-
dent is to appoint. the Judges, who determine
the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of
all legislative acts the President is to appoint
the Secretary, the District Attorney, and the
M,rahan ,ho naf al inn
portant an influence upon the Territorial desti-
MES. Not only is the President to appoint all
these officers, but he may remove them all, or
either of them, whenever he pleases. The
whole action of Territorial Government is thus
completely subjected to Executive control. The
whole achievement of the bill is to substitute Pres
ident,al Intervention for Congressional interren-
ton. IF we are to have either, | prefer that
of Congress, to be exercised by the Representa-
tives of the States and of the People, rather
than that Of the President, too likely, under
existing circumstances, to WELD the immense
patronage of his Office for the extension and
perpetuation of slavery.
The substitution Of Presidential for Con-
gressional regulation of the Territories will
have one result which deserves attention. The
question of freedom or slavery in the Terrific
ries, in the absence Of u Congressional prohibi-
tion, must be determined by the results of
Presidential elections. Henceiorward, this great
question must enter conspicuously into the con-
ficts of party. If the people desire to secure
the Territories for freedom they must have a
President, who will not hesitate to exercise his
influence on the side of freedom. The present
Administration, indeed, will make the first APP
pointments; but, the officers thus appointed
are removable at pleasure, and the People, by
changing the President, can change also the
whole character Of the official influence over the
Territories. The late distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts ence said, in substance, that the
Constitution OF States formed out Of the Terri
tories were made in Washington. l do not
fully accept this statement. But nobody can
doubt that the powers conferred on the Pres
ident by this bill will enable him to mould the
Territorial institutions according to his pleasure
unless he is met by the firm and determined op-
position of the people themselves.
Sir, am opposed to this Presidential inter-
vention. 1t is an abuse of language to call a
bill which authorizes it, a non-intervention bill
1t is absolutely the reverse. |, sir, who am de-
nounced for my determined resistance to the
repeal Of the Missouri prohibition-that simple
guarantee of inalienable rights--proposed an
amendment which would have secured to the
people Of the Territories the absolute control Of
their ewn affairs, without Congressional or Pres
idential Intervention. That amendment pro-
posed that the action of the President in the
organization of the Territories should be re
strictsd to the simple appointment eff co unis
sioners, who should divide the country into con
venient election precincts; notify an election o
Governor, Judges, Secretary, and members 0
the Legislature, to be held on, a certain day
receive and count the votes and announce TIN
result, and appoint place and time for tn
meeting of the Legislature, and the organiza
ton of the Government. | do not see how it i
possible that a simpler, palmer, or more certai
plan of giving effect to the doctrine of self-goy
eminent in the Territories could be devised.
do not see how it was possible for the profess,
friends of that doctrine to vote against it, with
out the most manifest inconsistency. But the
did vote against it, and it was rejected an
Presidential Intervention was established I'm
der these circumstances, regarding the bill a
the violation of a solemn compact as an abro
cation of great security for personal freedor
and individual liberty as no bill of non-intel
vention, but as bill which substitutes for til
control of the people, through their chosen rer
resentatives; the control of the President, throug
his official patronage, | can never give it tn
sanction of my vote.
stand here, Mr.. President, as an independ
ent Senator. The Senator from Tennessee, (Ml
BELL in the course Of his remarks, referred t
to my position as Democrat. If he intende
to identify me, or if he supposes that dsire
identity myself with that party which STYLE
itself the National Democracy, and whose cree
is contained in the Baltimore platform Of 1885,
and whose Administration is now urging til
repeal of the Missouri prohibition, he is grea
ly mistaken. There are two parties in TIL
country which claim to BE- Demo cratic. Or
is the self styled National Democracy the otl
or is the Independent Democracy The cree
of the former excerpts the Institution of slavel
from the application of Democratic principles
the creed Of the latter tolerates no exception
The policy of the former is to subordinate tt
rights and interests of freedom and free lab
TO the demands Of slavery and the slave power
the policy of the latter is to establish freedo
where the General Government possesses co
stitutional power to do 50, and to place its
climate influence on the side of liberty, rath
tnan on tho side of slavery. The former see
the support OF the extremist advocates ofslaver
as indispensable to its party triamphs the latt
sesks no sppport. except from those, wheth
citizens of slave States or free States, who q
willing to follow Democratic principles whithc
soever they lead, without any exceptions
favor of oppression. The Independent Demo
racy, Mr. President, is stronger, as yet, in pri
ciples than in numbers and yet this party
the last Presidential election numbered in
ranks q little more than one-twentieth of all +
voters in the United States. There are Blu thr
Senators upon this floor who are identiIi
with this political organization-the Senat
who has just taken his seat from Connecticr
IN. GILLETrE,) my friend from Massacnuset
(Mr. SuMNER,) and myself. 1t SO happens til
our number is little less, in proportion to I
whole number of Senators, than that OF the
dependent Democratic electors in proportion
the whole number of American voters.
The dnctrines which ouide our action in ,