Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-14

I
take from Legislature elected by the people o
these Territories the control over their domestic
relations. II Is wrong in principle"
| Again, that distinguished senator says:
when it is proposed to-day 10 deny 10 the
| people OF these Territories, or their immediate
representatives elected by themselves, the con
troll over The subject, | must say cannot sustain
/ the proposition
In remarks subsequently made during the
same debate, he says referring to the same
point:
Nov, sir, in taking this ground, am taking
1 the ground for which the south has all along uni
| formly conended. | am occupying ground upon
/ which am willing 10 stand before the north as
well as the south in relation TO this whole matter.
! will quote from another speech, to show
what this principle was. Upon this amend
ment the distinguished senator from Michigan
made one of his most eloquent and happy eff
forts. will read from his speech. 1t covers
the whole ground
6 | must confess that nothing has astonished me
more in all the discussions that have grown oui
OF this controversy than the GOODNESS with which
gentlemen rise here and maintain tue right ofCon.
gress 10 legisate for those distant Territories in
| all cases whatsoever annihilating human freedom
and establishing arbitrary power by the same pre-
tension. Ii ths is not tyranny tell me what is. Is
your claim founded the Constitution Put
1 your finger on the place and show it. There is
not the first word which expressly, or by implica.
| ton, gives il 10 you. Even the right 10 organize
/ governments is not there. But, ii you assume
that as matter of necessity, what necessity is
there for you TO govern this distant people, TO legs
late for them, aud 10 take from them the very first
attribute of freedom? Do you found this claim
| upon your superior wisdom-upon your capacity
10 Judge what is suited to the people better than
| they can Judge for themselves? ask where there
| ever was an arbitrary government which had not
the same self-suhicicnt opinion of its own wisdom
and The ignorance of the people? Lord North
aud at Vienna and Petersburg 10 doubt such a
proposition is to insure residence in Siberia, or
TO exhaust life in Austrian dungeons"
Other Senators spoke in favor Of the amend
ment, placing it upon the ground of the doc
trne of non-interveItion. But, in order to
show beyond the power of contradict on that
the true issue was the right of the people of the
Territories to make their own domestic institu.
tons for themselves, will quote briefly from
the speech Of Mr.. Berrien, distinguished con-
stitutional lawyer, then Senator from the
State of Georgia, and who was opposed to that
amendment. lie said:
Il wish the Senate TO understand that the direct
effect Of sanctoning this amendment will be to in
vest the territorial legislature of New Mexico
with the power TO allow or prohibit slavery, 10
allow, :hey exist TO re-enact, if they do not
the Mexican laws"
Now, sir, think | have shown beyond the
power of cavil that this amendment was offered,
discussed, and voted upon, with the view of es-
tablishing principle oflegislation in organic
ing the Territories of the United States; of
establishing a principle upon which the north
could stand, and upon which they would meet
the south in the settlement of these yexed
territorial questions, and not as mere expe-
dent, to be repudiated and trodden under foot
whenever another Territory should come up
for organization.
/ need not be told by the honorable senator
from Massachusetts that the bill organizing the
Territory Of New Mexico had no declared re-
ference to any other territory. pretend no
such thing. But do pretend, and do main
tain, that have shown that the amendment
striking out the restriction upon territorial le-
gislation was advocated upon, and placed upon,
the great and sacred principle of selfgovern
ment, and the non-intervention of the central
government in debating to distant organized
community Of our citizens what their domestic
institutions shall be; and l do pretend and
maintain that 1t reasserted and reestablished
the original doctrine of our ancestors, held so
sacred and involable by them that they wrest-
led for it from the day of the landing of the
vindcation of which, though comparatively few
in numbers, yet strong in the justice Of their
cause, our fathers braved the perils of seven
years war to victory and independence. And
what was this doctrine? 1t was resistance to
the arbitrary power of the British Parliament
which denied to the Colonies the right to legis-
late for themselves-to determine for them
selves what their own institutions should be
not as a confederation of Colonies, but that
each Colony should determine that for itself
Am | not right in this? If / am, why should
that great doctrine be disavowed by our legis-
lation here, and the doctrine SO hateful to the
"fathers substituted for it? If the doctrine
for which | contend be a good one let it be
universal, so far as our broad country extends
If it be bad one SO nefarious rs some sena.
tors seem to think, then, in the name Of Hea-
ven, let US retrace our steps let us stamp with
falsehood the doctrine of our ancestors let us
go further, and reclaim from the people of
Utah and New Mexico these nestmable
| rights-rights formidable to tyrants and usur-
pers only-of forming their institutions as
their own people shall choose. Yes, sir, let us
| be consistent.
| Now, sir, pray tell mel call upon the SEN
ators from Ohio and New York to tell me
what better claim the Mexicans in New Next
| CO, anu 4hOTlOHS III tan, nave 10 the rlgnt OF
selfgovernment, to make their own institutions
as they please, than our felow-citizens, our
sons, our brothers, our neighbors and friends,
now in, or who shall hereafter 60 into, the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska? Will
any one of the senator's who voted for that
amendment-I see number of them in the
chamber-and who now oppose this bill, tell
me? Did senators. then act upon principle
| have shown that such was the issue. Sir,
am not to presumed am not at liberty to pre-
sume-that any senator acted then, or now
acts, from sinister or sectional motives but
am bound to presume that each acted as he
believed would secure to the people of these
Territories their just rights under the Consti-
tuition. Not only so, sir, | have the right to
presume nay, | am bound to presume, that
those senator's then meant, as they declared by
their votes, that the people of those Territories
were the proper and safe depository of power
in regard to their own domestic institutions,
and particularly touching the subject of
slavery.
Now, sir, if l am right in this, and the re-