Washington sentinel., 1854-05-05
Masbingtnn gentinel.
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
SPEECH OF HON. SAMUEL A. SMITH

OF TENNESSEE,
In He House Of Representatives., 1pra 5, 1854.
The House being in Committee of the Whole
on the state of the Union
! Mr.. SMITH, of Tennessee, said:
| Mr.. CHAIRMAN l propose to address the
committee to-day on the bill to establish gov
| ernments in Kansas and Nebraska, and to con-
| fine my remarks principally to the fourteenth
section, which is as follows:
"That the Constitution, and all laws Of the
United States, which not locally inapplicable,
| shall have the same force and effect within the
| said Territory Of Nebraska as elsewhere within
the United States, except the eighth section Of the
act preparatory to the admission OF missouri into
| the Union, approved March 6, 1870, which, being
inconsistent with the principle of non-interven-
| ton by Congress with slavery in the States and
Territories, as recognised by the Legislation of
| 1850, commonly called the compromise measures,
is hereby declared imperative and void it being
the true intent and meaning Of this act not to legis
late slavery into any Territory or State, nor TO
exclude il therefrom, but 10 leave the people there
of perfectly free to form and regulate their domes.
tic institutions in their own way, subject only to
the Constitution OF the United States: Prorided,
That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to revive or put IN force any law or regulation
which may have existed prior to the act OF the
9th Of March, 1920, either protecting establishing,
prohibiting, or abolishing slavery"
And in the discussion of the important ques
tons involved in this measure, / shall endeavor
to utter no word which can justly be regarded
as offensive to any gentleman from any section
of the Union There are two bills before the
Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union for the organization of governments in
these Territories-one reported by the chair
man Of the Committee on Territories in this
House, and the bill which has been passed by
and sent down here from the Senate.
l L. q xlxn& a~,.,
my support to either of these bills, there being
| in nv Judgment no difference in them rela-
tive to the great principle sought to be estab-
liched.
The mode of opposition reserted oto defeat the
measure under consideration throws open TO dis
cusson the whole slavery question; and the
archives of the country have been sifted to the
bottom for facts, records, and arguments for
| and against the principle involved. That prin-
ciple IS an important one, and lies at the very
foundation Of our political institutions
Prior to the passage of the compromise
measures Of 1850, we were at sea upon the sla-
very question, without rudder with which to
steer us, or compass or friendly star to direct
our course. BY the passage of those measures
principle was established, around which, if
adhered to, the friends of the rights of the
States and Of the perpetuity of the Union may
rally in all time to come--that of non-interfer
ence by Congress in the domestic affairs of the
States and Territories of the Union. 1t is be-
cause Of the incorporation of this great princi-
pie of selfgovernment into this bill that give
it my cordial support. | desire, sir, to have
4 this great principle recognised by the national
legislature in the most solemn form, that o
precedent may be established to be referred to
and followed in all future time, when sectional
questions may disturb the harmony of the
/ country
! The principal objections urged against the
passage Of the bill are:
First. That it repea' $ the Missouri compro-
mise.
Second. That it repeals the laws which it is
alleged existed in the territory prior to 1920,
projecting and establishing slavery. And
Third. That it will produce agitation of the
slavery question.
The second objection, regret to have to say,
comes principally from southern men, who,
though no doubt honest in their intentions, are
yet as misguided in their views and policy as
were those from the same section who voted
against the Clayton compromise bill in lS48.
But first, of the Missouri compromise.
This bill does not propose to repeal the Mis-
souri, compromise of 1921; but it does repeal
the Missouri restriction of 1920, which is as fol-
lows:
"SEc. 8. And be it further enacted, That in all
that territory ceded by France TO the United States
under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of
$50 30 north latitude, not included within the linn
| its OF the State contemplated by this act, slavery
| and involuntary servtude, otherwise than In the
/ punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall
have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby
| forever prohibited Prouided dlicdys, That any
person escaping into the same, from whom labor
or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Ter
ritory of the United States, such fugitive may be
! lawfully reclaimed and conveyed TO the person
claiming his labor or service as aforesaid"
This, sir, was no compromise, either between
the north and the south, or between the gener-
al government and the State of Missouri. A
compromise is an adjustment or compact, in
which concessions are made on each side and
without mutual concession there can be no
compromise, in any acceptation of that term.
/ But the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr..
HuST.1 in his able speech few days ago, says,
in speaking of the Missouri restriction, that
q II was concession to the south by the north,
which had originally contended Tor the ordinance
of 1857 for Missouri and the balance ofLouislana
territory Ii was concession also by the north
10 the people of Missouri, whom it authorized TO
form a State constitution without the restriction
Of slavery
Here. sir. is distinguished southern man,
declaring on this floor that that was a conces-
/ sion by the north to the south, and why? Be-
cause the north had contended for the appica-
ton of the ordinance of 1857 to all the Lou
isiana territoryl Now, sir, what was the
condition of this territory prior to the passage
of the act Of the 9Th of March, 1920? Every
foot of it was Stare territory; and that acl
simply excluded slavery from all that part of it
north of 36o 30< north latitude not included
within the limits of the State of Missouri
/ Did this act establish slavery anywhere, as ar
equivalent for its exclusion from that territory
Certainly not. Ii, then, the act simply exclud
ed slavery from country where it existed
without establishing it anywhere as an equiva
lent, it could be no concession by the north tt
the south, but was an ordinary act of. legisla
ton, subject to repeal whenever the interest o
the country might demand it. Nor was it I
compromise with the people of Missouri, "whon
it authorized to form State constitution with
out the restriction of slavery" Sir, they hac
this right without any law of Congress upor
the subject. They also had the right to deter
mine for themselves the character OF their DO
rnestic institutions, without the interference o.
Congress.