The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-27

u
nstca TO ue upon the old issues between the whg and
democratic parties gratied to believe that there is
great harmony OF feeling and sentiment between self
aud my constituents upon the subject now under discus
sion in this oommec and those who differ with will
doubtless accord 70 the credit OF being honest and
| did In the views which entertain.
i Mr. Chairman, the question Of the organization OF the
Territories o Nebraska and Kansas mooted the
district im.edAtey represent here during my
/ Had 1t been, would have taken the side which
pouse and would have done without hesitation The
substitute oAred by the chairman Of the Committee
Territories M RcAnDsos proposes % establish terrific
rial governmn for the Territories OF Kansas and Nebras
k and declares in substance that the 9th section Of the
act Of the Congrcss OF 1920 preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Union known the Missouri Compro-
mise being inconsistent with the legislation of 1880 Is In
operative snd void There is In my Judgment but one
for every lover Of his country and its constitution
To pursue, which IL to not only vote for but bend all his
energies In the advocacy of this measure There certainly
be but opinion in the South to the justice Of
this measurr The Missouri restriction all wrong from
But il is said by the aboonsts of the North that the
Missouri restriction is consecraed by time and the gene
raj acquiescence OF the country Sir deny III for no
congressional enactment be consecrdd that violates the
constitution OF our glorious confederacy and believe the
Missouri restriction does it. The powers of the federal gov
ernnent defined by the federal constitution and for
fear the sovereignty Of the States might he invaded the
same has been amended by the insertion OF the following
provision;
The not delegated to the United States by the
constitution prohibited by it to the States
| to the States respectively, or to the people"
! Where them does the federal government derive the
power TO bcride the Louisiana purchase with geogaph
ica line by which the people of the North invited with
all their property TO settle upon the public domain the
common property Of the people Of all the States but which
denies to the sayeholdng States the right migrate with
their properly. and settle upon any portion Of Che Lou
There Is no delegated power TO such line and the
powers not delegaed' reserved to the States and
to the people But gentlemen contend that the pow
er Is derived from the following provision Of the federal
constitution: 1i @ 1 e@1
The Congress shall have power to dispose Of, and make
al needfu rules and regulations Tespecng the territory
Congress then is restricted in their legislation for the
Territories to 4necdfn rules and regulations Did that
portion OF the Louisiana purchase north of 36 deg 30 min
north latitude need any rules and regulations the time
Of the passage of the Missouri restriction? answer it
did not Sir the foot of civilized had scarcely ever
trodden this drenry wilderness II the PLAY ground
the roebuck the home of the buffalo the panther the wolf
the wild cal, and the bear; and il anecdfnT to make
rulc and regulations for the government of these wild
beasts that held so completely the dominion of these west
wds? ifit not the Congress 1920 transcend
ed its powers and its act is nullity Sir the time OF
the passage Of the Missouri restriction the caverns the
hills and Businesses of this western wilderness had scarcely
reveberaed with the voice of human being the yes
and whoops Of the wild and untutoed red Of the
est The axe had not been piled to the trees of this
en forest but they grew and fourished and bloomed in
all their desolae but untouched grandeur Mr. Chairman
ii wrong say that this wilderness needed any rules
and regnations there was nobody there 10 rule and
nobody there TO regulate. But admitting legislation
necessary the Missouri restriction is in violation of the
constitution of government the palladium of our ber
s ns sspop W. # The we'll S the North the
Sir, slavrs not only recognised property by the
great organic law of the republic formed BIZ our fathers
then fresh from the batteelds Of the revolution but they
have been repeatedly recognised since in various congress
sonal enacments for their protection IT, then slaves
conceded by the general government to be property and If
the public domain constituting the Territories Of this gov
ernment belong the North or to the South but Is The
common property of the people OF all the States OF this
Union, how can law be constitutional which permits the
people OF section Of this Union 10 20 with their prop
erty and occupy this public domain which belongs the
people Of all the States but denies the people who reside
in another section of the Union the right 10 do so To
contend for such doctrine is TO contend that the public
domain is not the property Of all the States but be-
longs the people who reside in the latitude which lies
Suppose Congress were to attempt TO geographical
line through our Territories and assign the territory
one side of the line to the settlement and cultivation Of the
emigants who cattle and the territory the other
side Of the line the owners Of horses such proposition
would be hissed down by the whole country and yet the
Missouri restriction prohibits the Of slayeswhch
are much property horses catterom occupying
with their property large portion of the public domain
the common property Of the people of the nation whilst il
permits the Of all other kinds OF property take
their property migrate TO, and occupy the public do
main and thus the general government Is made pick
and Gull It's population and ascertain by the property Of
its citizens who shall and who shall settle upon i,s
public domain which Is the property Of the peo
pie OF the nation Sir al such restrictions unconsttu
onal and unjust and regret they have any advocates
upon this floor Such doctrine Is monstrous it is horr
| ble; II will not bear investigation.
Mr. Chairman, have witnessed with regret and asonisl
ment the mad rawlings of the aboonsts upon this floor
but they have failed 10 convince that The Missouri re
riction is either constitutional just Il agree with
a law which has been generated in their crazy and
frantic imaginaons upon the subject Of slavery which
they proclaim TO the world Is ahghr law than the cons
tuition Of their country and which they pretend Is TO be
gathered from the Bible Mr. Chairman Il is very wrong
for such sinners aboitonss to talk about the Bible IL
s profanity 10 do the Bible is great moral light given
TO s by the pen OF inspiration 10 rrsda,e the moral path
way OF fallen whilst upon this ball OF earth and final
y to uminc his way up 10 the rcfugent throne Of the
great Author OF us all The aboonsts ought TO hccosie
more religious before they appeal 10 sacred book
the Bible particularly those Of them who contend for
/ higher law than the constitution Of their country.
Sir, that portion Of public domain which has been
acquired by purchase has been purchased by the nations
money, and the South well the North has paid this
money into the nations Golfers, and that portion Of
public lands which we have acquired a legitimate con-
sequence OF appeal to the bloody code OF has been
earned as well by the toll and prowcss OF the South
that Of the North The blood of the South well the
North has crmsoned and their bones lie bleaching upon
every battlefield The South has paid its half Of the
ney and spilled It's half Of the gore with which Terri
tories have been acquired In this regard say, the South
and the North have been equal and ought they not TO be
equal in The occupancy and settlement of public
II domain But there Get OF men in the North; men
full Of eenegromania before whose wild and mad
Of fanacsm constitutions and national laws have give
20 dedicate whole public domain, acquired by the
mon vaor and treasure OF the whole country TO the settle
mcnt OF the northern populacc.
But the North tell that the Missouri restricoa was
compromise contract between the North and the South
Sir deny IT, The first great principle taught by all the
scientific awwrters is that 1t takes two parties make
a binding contract man make contract with q
nation make contract with another nation but II Is
untrue that sovereignty make with itself