Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-25

II departure from the original liberal aHd just purpose
OF restoring to the position we had before the act OF
1920 five had the right Introduce slaves into this
territory before the restriction act of 1920 the repeal OF
that act would have restored us to that right The
amendment moved bv the Senator from Illinois seemed
to him to be denol of that restoration. But, this
construction did MT meet the sanction of older Senator'S
abandoned it. My anxiety to act in harmony with my
Southern feuds gave an easier impulse to my decision
Imagine my surprise when | heard the Senator from
North Carolina gravey contendiDg that the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Illinois precluded the idea
of restoring the South to its original position, and that
his proyso only expressed, ID language more distinct,
what had already been expressed adopting the amend
ment Of the Senator from Illinois
Allow me to say, Mr. President, that by no means
with the Senator'S from North Carolina and Vr
GINA that this bill is all the South has asked III
their reading Of il is it falls mmeasuraby short
of that point. The South has asked DO left alone in
the enjoyment Of all her rghtsno to be egsated into
out of the Territories. In 1920 Congress legsated
her out OF Nebraska In 1854 it is proposed to repeal
this unjust legislation and restore her to her lost posi-
on But the Senator from Illinois comes forward with
an amendment which the Senator from North Carolina
insists precludes this idea Il take it for granted no one
questions that but for the act Of 1920 the Southern peo
pie could have introduced slavery into this Territory
The idea Of restoring the French laws by repeating the
Missouri act is wholly dspeed are told by the Ian
guage Of the amendment first proposed. But to make
assurance douby sure the Senator from North Carolina
brings in his proviso, which says in terms that law
existing prior to 1920, giving sanction protection to
slavery in these Territories shall be revived put in
force Suppose there laws in these Territories
prior to 1920 sanctonng and protecting slavery,
think there were and that you repealed them by the act
of 1920, you did, what does justice demand of you
now? Not to legsate slavery into the country,
asks that but to repeal your repeating act and put
back where you found This would be non.inerven-
ton But it is not non-nervention for you to keep in
force the laws Of Mexico which abolished slavery in
Utah and New Mexico and to repeal the laws Of France
which tolerated slavery in Nebraska and Kansas.
cannot concur with my friend from North Carolina in
the opinion that in the simple of repeang the Mis-
INV nIauvs
before its passage admng that those laws sanctioned
and protected slavery should be legislang slavery
into the country We found laws in force then prohibits
ing slavery; we repealed those laws in 1920 If in 1854
repeal the repeating act and thereby place the org
nal law in force, the will stand if had acted
at ALL So fer from egsaiing slavery into the country
we shall simply leave things where found them.
Mr. President in voting for the amendment of the Sc
nator from Illinois stood the cutter verge of the pre-
ciplce One hairs breadth further felt would put me
overheard. When the Senator from North Carolina
brought forward his proviso said promptly would not
vote for it. The Senator has explained that il makes no
alteration in the text Of the bill it had been amended
IN this he anu differ But suppose it does not then
why ask to vote for it? If it left us where we stood
before why was it urged upon us?
felt at the time that it another concession; that
it was still another and wider departure from the orri-
nal purpose OF the bl-the simple purpose of repeating
the Missouri act and leaving the South where found
her; and so regarding it could consent to vote for
it, If the South is not restored her position is not
mockery to talk about non-ntervention She hos lost
gress and by those alone. She had protection for slaves
by virtue of the French laws prior to 1920 in these Ter
rtories. You took it away by the act of 1920 You not
only do not restore this specific right in 1854 but you
have said in many words it should not be restored
beg leave to dissent from another view of this subject
taken by the distinguished Senator from North Carona
butt no, will not pursue the discussion simply rose
to give the which Influenced me in voting against
the proyiso of my friend from North Carolina | felt
called upon to do this from the the discussion had
taken this morning; ami now having done this and not
desiring to widen the field of debate by the introduction
OF new topics, take my seat.
Mr.. CLAYTON. My honorable friend from South Ca
rona Mr. BUTLEn has appealed to for the correct
of his statement in regard to the compromise OF 348
and if had other motive for rising now to answer his
question, my profound respect for him would induce
TO speak He says and says truly, that at the time that
compromise proposed by the predicate of North
ern men was that whatever compromise should be enter
ed into the Mexican law should not be repealed. The
member Of the committee on that compromise who first
made the objection that the Territorial Legislature should
have it in their power to egislate slavery was Mr.
PHELPS of Vermont. He said, my friend has stated
to-day: Here is Southern President; you propose to
put into operation Government under his auspices and
direction Will he not appoint governor and judges to
repeal the Mexican law which prohibits slavery in Cali
fornia and New Mexico?" .."".. Il,
Mr.. Calhouns view that no power should or could
be conferred any Territorial Legislature either to
tablish prohibit slavery in the Territory He held
that the Constitution of the United States necessarily
tended over the Territories they acqur-
ed, whether by express enactment Of law without it
and that therefore, controlled and repealed the Next
can law existing at and before the acquisition of the
quered and purchased country In these views of Mr..
Calhoun Southern gentlemen who voted for the bill gene
rally concurred. But the Senator from North Carolina
Mr. BADGER) opposed the bill and opposed this opinion
He held that in the face of the Mexican law or the alb
of all law upon the subject slaves could be
red to the Territories and he therefore ssented from
those who proposed by the BILL to send the question of
law to the courts ".
1t is part of my purpose discuss the amendment
to the Nebraska bill proposed by my friend the Senator
from North Carolina, (Mr. BApGBR.) That amendment
provided in substance that the bill should be held
revive any prior law which had established slavery In this
Territory leave that to others who interested
to establish slavery in Nebraska than my constitu
ents and the content to leave it after what
said in the main debate the bill before its passage,
which has not been answered Those who satisfied
that the Territories should be left they have said
blank this question that there should be no law e-
CALLING slavery, there will not be under the BILL and
without the old Spanish law of expect any
decision of the courts to sanction slavery there. They
rely the action of the Territorial Legislature elected
by the transient who may happen to be there
when the Government is organized sustain their claim
to hold slaves there they vany expect to do it in the
absence of all law to authorize slavery.
This brings me to the question Of the propriey Of Civ
ing these transient persons, few know they must
be, the right to decide this question of slavery. Mr.
Calhoun denounced this claim of right in them
absurd and monstrous doctrine; and he the
who gave this power when thus conferred and exercised
the of squatter sovereignty The Nebraska bill
which passed the Senate is bill which expressly confers
that power The Senator from Michigan Mr. CAss was
right when he in his place, Immediately after the
final vote that BILL and congratulated the Senate on
the triumph of the doctrines of squatter sovereignty
say he perfectly right 1t the triumph of the
very doctrine which Calhoun rcpudiated in lSiS and
j L authorizes me- " hn m IN