The daily union., 1854-02-19

possessions in Texas, New Mexico, and California.
But suppose we did refuse 10 extend II: how did that
refusal work forfeiture Of our vested ghis under ~ |
desire to know that
Again: ii this forfeiture OF Nebraska occurred in is4s,
as the senator charges how does il happen that he not
only failed in 1850, when the parties in court here
adjusting their mutual claims. to demand judgment agans,
The free States, bui, the contrary urged that the
old Missouri compromise line, yet held valid and
sacred should be extended through TO the Pacific ocean,
come now to the chief ground OF defence OF this ex
iraordnary measures which s, that il aboshes geo
graphical line OF division between the proper fields OF
free labor and slave labor and refers the claim between
them 10 the people Of the Territories Even II this great
change OF policy actually wise and necessary have
shown that il is necessary make it now, regard
10 The Territory OF Nebraska. II il would be just else
where. il would be unjust in regard to Nebraska, simply
because. for ample aud adequate equivalents. fully re-
line there.
Blu, why is this change Of policy wise necessary !
II must be because either that the extension OF slavery Is
evil, because you have not the power 10 prevent
at ALL because the maintenance OF geographical line
IS no longer practicable
know that the opinion is sometimes advanced here
and elsewhere that the extension Of slavery absay
sdered, is not evil but laws prohibiting the Afr-
slave trade still standing the ute book, and
express the contrary OF The American Congress
and of the American people. pass on, therefore, from
that point.
Sir, do not like, than others, geographical line
between freedom and slavery. But is because would
have, il 1t possible, all territory free Since
that cannot be, line OF division is Indispensable; and
any line is geographical line
Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. But il is
one OF the peculiarlties OF compromises that constu-
onal objections, like all others, buried under them
by those who make and Tafy them for the obvious
son that the parties at waive them, and receive
equivalents Certainly. the slaveholdng States. which
waived their constitutional objections against the Com.
promise OF 1890, and accepted equivalents therefor can
no, be allowed 10 revive and offer them now reason
for refusing to the slayeholdng States their rights
under that Compromise, without first restoring the equiv
aenfs which they received on condition OF suTendering
their constitutional objections
For arguments sake. however, let this reply be waived,
and let look al this constitutional objection. You say
that the exclusion Of slavery by the Missouri Complo-
mise reaches through and beyond the existence OF the
region organized Territory, and prohibits slavery
territory, while, the contrary the States when admit
ted will be sovereign, and must have exclusive lursdc
uon over slavery for themselves Let this, TOO be grant
ed. But Congress, according 10 the constitution, may
admit States Ii Congress may admit, then Con-
gress may also refuse to admitthat is to say, may
iect new States The greater includes the less there
tore, Congress may admit condition that the States
shall exclude slavery. Ii such condition should be ac-
ceped, would il not be binding!
II is by necessary, on this OCCASION 10 fol-
low the argument further 10 the question: whether such
condition is in conflict with the constitutional provis
ion that the States received shall be admitted
equal iooling with the original States. because, this
case, and at present. the question relates not 10 the ad
mission of Stale, but to the organization OF Territory,
and the exclusion of slavery within the Territory while
lis Status Territory shall continue and further
Congress has power TO excade slavery in Territories,
if they have any power create CONTROL govern Ter
rtories at all for this simple reason: that find the au-
thoriy of Congress the Territories wherever you
may. there you find no exception from that general au
thofity favor OF slavery Ii Congress has authority
slavery n the Territories, II has the District
OF Columbia. II, then, you abolish law OF freedom in
Nebraska, in order TO establish policy OF abnega
ton, then true consistency requires that you shall also
abolish The slavery laws in the District OF Columbia and
submit the question OF the toleraon of slavery within
the District 10 lie inhabitants.
II sou reply, thai The District OF Columbia has local
or territorial legislature then rejoin. so also has not
Nebraska and also has not Kansas You are calling
territorial legislature into existence in Nebraska, and
another Kansas to the jurisdiction the sub
ect OF slavery, which you Then consistency
demands that you call into existence territorial egsla
in the District oil Columbia to assume the jurisdiction
here which you must also Tenounce Wil You do this
We shall see.
To come closer TO The question: What is this
principle of absegating natiolal authority on the sub
leet OF slavery, favor OF The peoples Do you abne
gate all authority whatever m the Terrtoriese Not al
all you abnegss only authority slavery there. DO
you sbnsgae that Mo- you do not and cannot In
the very act of abnegang Ieglsale and enact that
the States 10 be hereafter organized shall in,
whether slave free, their Inhabitants shall choose
Is this legisang not only the subject OF slavery in
the Territories but the subject OF slavery in
the future States In the very act OF abnegang, you
call into being legislature which shall assume the
thorty which you reDouncing You not only exer-
else authority IN that ACT but you exercise authority
slavery when you confer the territorial egsa
iure the power ac, upon that subject More than this
ln the very OF calling lha, territorial legislature into
existence, you exercise authority IN prescribing who may
elect and who be elected You
selves a upon every act that they pass legis
latye body, not only all other subjects, but on
the subject OF slavery itself. Nor eau you renqash
that veto for il is absurd 10 say that you create
an agent and depute to him the legislative authority OF
the United States which your agent cannot al your
pleasure remove, and whose acs you cannot al your own
pleasure disavow and repudate. The territorial legls
laiure is your agent lis acis are your Such IA
the principle that is TO suppan the ancient policy-a
principle foil OF sbsurdites and contradictions
Again You claim that this policy OF abnegaiion is
based upon democratic principle. democratic prnc.
pie principle opposed TO other that is despoc
or srstoerac You claim and exercise the power in
sttule and maintain government IN the Territories ls
this comprehensive power aristocta,ic despocl II IL
be not how is the partial power asiocrac despolc
You retain authority TO appoint governors. without
whose consent no laws be made any subject,
and Judges, without whose consideration laws
be executed and you retain the power to change them
pleasure. Are these powera also, aristocrsc or des
poc III they not, then the exercise of legislative
power by yourselves is not II they are. then why not
renounoe them also No, This is iar-ieiched
cuse. Democracy is simple uniform, logical system,
system OF arbitrary contradictory, and conflicting
principles
But you must nevertheless national authority
over slavery in the Territories while you retain all other
powefs What is this but evasion OF solemn re-
sponsb abilities The general authority OF Congress over
the Territories one wisely conhded to the national
Legislature, TO young and growing communities from
The dangers which bese them in Their state OF pupiage
and TO prevent them from adopting any policy that shall
be a war with their own lasting interests with the
general welfare OF the whole republic. The authority
over the subject OF slavery that which ought be
nonnced last of ALL in favor OF territorial eglsstuIes
becsuse from the very circumstances OF the Territories
those legislatures are likely yield readily 10 ephem