Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-06-03


: equal division in kind may be sold
Here then is American Law, statute law covering thi
whole territory, the very territory embraced in thes
bs-egislang for the protection Of slavery egsatin
declaring that the stealing Of slave is to subject tn
culprit to the punishment Of death.
After the Missouri Territorial Government was form
edthat is after it was detached from connection Wit
lndianaa law respecting slaves was passed by the Ter
rtoral Legislature of Missouri which operated upon thu
whole of this Territory Of Nebraska 1t passed January
% 1917, and its title is:
An act supplementary to an act passed by the Goyerno
and Judges OF the Indiana Territory respecting slaves
for other purposes"
And II thus commences:
"Bs enacted by the General Assembly If the Territory
Missouri, as follows"
1t provides among other things for the sale Of runaway
| slaves JE
&c. when Missouri was introduced into the Union as
State her Legislature passed another law respecting
slaves entitled SAN act supplementary to act entitled
law respecting slaves, passed by the Governor and
Judges Of the Indiana Territory the first day of octo
! Der, 1604''
This act of the State of Missouri passed the
9th Of December 1922 and recognises the obligation of
the law passed by the Indiana Government and its
/ tnued existence.
While on the subject Of these Territorial laws would
observe, for the benefit of those who indulge vague
TONS that this territory has always been governed by
what is called the civil law, and subject any
other that it is somewhat remarkable that the very first
law ever passed for its government chaper - declares
that certain offenders, upon conviction shall be punish
l. !.
accustomed"
Now air let US turn our attention to Congressional
enactments. do not deem it necessary to refer to oil
the acts of Congress relating this Territory ana recog
nising aud protecting in form another the nsu
ton Of slavery there My Southern friends tread
rather dangerous ground when they sometimes deny alto
geher the power of Congress to legate the subject
Of slavery. will content myself by referring TO q
single act.
BY the sixteenth section of the act of 1872 establish
ing Territorial Government for Missouri apart and dis
tinct from Indiana is provided that the laws aud regu
latonsyes the laws and regulations" the very words
o. the provso" THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS a force R
the Territory Of Louisiana at the commencement Of this act
and inconsistent m The prousons erecf shall continue
IN force until altered, modified repealed By the General
| assembly,"
Here them is an act of Congress expressly providing
that the law respecting slavery which have just read,
shall be the law of the Territory of Missouri Congress
was bound TO know what laws and regulations were in
force there especially when enacted by the Territorial
Government because these laws required to be sent
to Congress for revision and if disappr6ved be
void SO far from being annnled however it estab
shed law of the Territory Of Missouri and that was
the law prior to and at the time of the passage Of the act
of 9th Of March, 1920 the date Of the Missouri prohi
bton.
But IS have already said these laws have been
repealed. Yes, sir they are now in force. There are
parts of the Louisiana purchase which those laws
operating What effect then did the act Of the
9Th of March, 1920, have upon them 1t simply prohi
bed slavery north of 500 30. 1t did not repeal the
laws Those laws are now in existence. 1t simply
strcted and confined the practical operation of those laws
and statutes to particular localities but it did not annul
and repeal the laws themselves have shown that in
1922 the Legislature of Missouri refers to them still in
existence. e
TO illustrates suppose Congress should pass act in
reference to A. B, and G. and should afterwards pass
another declaring that should be excepted from the
operation of the law would that be repeal of the first
act? Undoubtedly note
Sir when reflect upon these things may we not well
inquire what there in this bill of advantage honor
to the South to warrant Southern gentlemen in making
irnno rtaDt and 1npanp orv
they not indeed thankful for small favors Was it that
they overpowered by the cxuberance of Northern
generosity and determined not to be outdone in such
displays Of sefsaerifcing heroism Sir, trust may
moderate ardor when come 10 vote upon amend
in this House. lest in paroxysm Of poiiteness
may DO tempted to throw in provision for gradual
cipation in Virginia and the Caronas.
May not hope, too, that Northern friends will
themselves resist the introduction of this proyiso Will
it not weaken instead of Strengthening their position Is
it not utterly at variance with their in 1885,
when they refused abolish the local laws in the Next
can territory? Can they not stand more firmly upon
some clear and well-defned principle than upon
whose effects at with its professcd pur
poses They support the doctrine Of nonntervention
let them not deny it in practice II refusal to extin
guish local laws allowing slavery would be to egsate
slavery into Territory, does it not follow that their
was exclusion Of slavery from it
But there is another grave question involved in these
bills which refer to rather for the purpose inviting the
attention OF gentlemen to it than to offer at this time any
determinate opinion upon it. 1t is matter which
have escaped the notice Of those who have spoken in
this Nebraska debate 1t is this: Within the limits of
the proposed Territory of Kansas there about TWEEN
ty thousand square miles of countryarger than Mas
sachusetts Connecticut and Rhode Island together
which is now, by law sayeholding territory. It is
part of the territory coded by Texas the United States
and, from other perhaps from over
sight not added to New Mexico with the rest of the
ceded territory of Texas 1t is savehodng territory
because it such under the laws of Texas when she
sold it to the United States II is true that under
stipulation with Texas it may not into the Union
State except upon condition that it shall be
slaveholding; but in its Territorial condition it Is
savehodng territory These the boundaries Of this
south by latitude $50 30 the Texas line by the
Indian Territory, 1902 west longtude and north by
the Arkansas river, about $50 north latitude So much
of the country lies north of So included within the
proposed limits Of Kansas. The between $50 30f
and 3o contains FIVE thousand eight hundred and twenty
square miles the above 80 is than double
that quantity Besides this there is another tract Of
country ceded by Texas, bounded follows: west by
the Sierra Madre south by 49, New Mexico; and
north by the Arkansas river.
! Now, sir, supposing this Territory united with the
Missouri Territory in government what is to be the
rule to slavery, applying to the whole? Will the bill
establish but law for the whole Territory, in.
consistent laws for the several parts If there not to
be inconsistent laws governing the people, then
is slavery be abolished in the Texas part egsated
into the Missouri portions But the bill expressly declares
that does legisate slavery into any Territory and
it would rather seem, therefore, that it to be abo
shed in the Texas country And what to be the legal
effect upon that country Of that part of the provso which
declares that law regulation existing prior to 1920
hlch clio bn mt