Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-04-26
SPEECH OF HON I. 4 cL1NGMAN,

Mr. CiINGMAs said
Mr. Chairman: As no one has had the floor as
signed to- him. Twill now occupy tsxith a view q
saying something upon a question which has Desn
already discussed at great length during the pFeseh
session of Congress-
have heretofore sought an opportunity 70 PFC
sent to this House certain points connected Win Tue
Y Nebraska bill It is probable that shalt ma an
hour little time enough for my purpose, and mere
fore say to the gentlemen around me, that nope
they will not interrupt me by asking PERMISSION 20
explain / shall endeavor to do justice to every
one but should it be my misfortune to misrepresent
any gentleman with whose opinions may come IN
collision, hope that he will avail himself OF some
other occasion to correct me. 1t mas never oeoi
nv misfortune while I have occupied scat upon
this floor to make single remark that any gentle
= man in the House thought offensive to MN. nor
have ever been called upon to explain anything
have said in the course of debate. My purpose WI
be day to keep within due parliamentary bounus'
and at the sarae time frankly and fairly to discuss
the questions connected with this SUBJECT, upon
what Understand to be their true MERITS
You have been told by the gentleman from IT.
GINA Mr AIlsonl that had something to say up
on the Nebraska territorial bill in the last Congress-
when it was pending not in the shape, however, III
which 1T now presented After speech on IN II, !
offered an amendment to protect the rights OF the
Indians, which adopted, and then Voted LOT
the BILL That amendment now stands in the pre-
sent bill in the identical language in which 1t was
offered by me. The fact that more than two-thlrds
of that Congress thought that territorial orgahlZ-
alton then necessary affords an additional rea-
son, to my mind, why we should at once organize
Territory there. / voted for the bill then not NIX
ing it, however, and after trying to get It IN pet
ter shape, because there was nothing offensive IN
the bill itself 1 greatly prefer the proposition
which has come from the Senate. could we'll sup
port itas it is; but shall vote, nevertheless, TO
strike out what ); known the Clayton amendment
not that think it is wrong in theory, but because
it will lead to practical results, and was moved
by an enemy of the bill merely to embarl ass Its
friends in the North. As to the amendment OF my
r I T do
changes the character of the original bill IN any
manner whatsoever Be that as it may, as the bill
now stands it provides, in the clcarcst TERMS that
the people of that Territory shall not be prohlbited
by any law formerly existing, from leglsatlng as the
Constitution of the United States permits them TO
do. 1t does not say that there shall be no law up
the subject of slavery. 1t merely says that 1t
will not REVIVE any former old law prohibiting or
establishing it. In other words, that it will leave
this Territory just as though there had never been
in it any law upon the subject of slavery.
This, in my Judgment, is the best species OF nom
intervention. We say that the people of the Terri
tory may lcgslate the Constitution ofthe United
States permits them to do without the Intervention
of Congressional law, French law, Spanish law,
Mexican law, or Indian law. 1t makes the Terrific
ry like sheet of blank paper, which our citizens
may write American constitutional law. 1t is there
fore, better bill than the Utah and New Mexico
bills of 1850; because those bills left the Mexican
laws in force, by which slavery had been abolished
and prohibited 1t is better bill than the Clayton
compromise, because that compromise left those
laws in force; and yet every southern Democrat IN
both Houses of Congress, including Mr.. Calhoun,
supported that measure under the idea that the
Constitution of the United States proprio rigore,
would override, annu and supersede those local
laws. If they were right in this view why then the
more certainly would that Constitution be suffici
ent where there was no opposing law whatever. l
am satisfied that if the Clayton compromise and the
acts of 1850 had contained repeal of the Mexican
law, there would have been opposition to them
from the SdAth | say, then with the utmost con-
fdence that the Kansas and Nebraska bills are for
the South the best measures yet presented
shall not stop to answer the ingenious speech of
the gentleman from Virginia. [Mr. Mson,] or that
of the gentleman, from Maryland, Mr.. Franklin
The points argued by them were very much discus
sed six seven years ago. by those of US who we're
then in Congress. will only say that the real !
question to be met, is this Shall this territory be
left open to every citizen of the United States with
the Constitution alone to control him. shall the |
Nlmot proylso stand on it?" That is the point |
which gentlemen have to meet. They have to !
show to their constituencies, that the Wilmot pro-
vlso now standing upon and controlling the terri
tory, is better than to leave it open to everybody
whether from the South the North. leave rem
tlenen to make the expation to their constituents
as they best can. 1t is enough for me to say that
the arguments and excuses given by them are not
my opinion of the smallest weight to Justify on
position to the BILL
But, sir, before noticing what consider to be the
principal difficulty in the way, let me advert to one
other striking point know that in 1850 certain
PIOtcSSSu
who were really opposed to that principle The
true friends OF the system-those who had sustain
ed the doctrines of General Cass-are have no
DOUBT wiling to carry it out to-day. But there
were certain at that time entirely adverse to
the principle IN fact, but who nevertheless then
gave 1T hypocIitical support, because they said
tine settlement at that time, proposed
intervention gounds, would operate injuriously to
the southern section. They saw that it let in the
whole OF California down to the 32d degree of
north latitude as free State and that it threw the
Santa Fe country out of Texas, slave State into
New Mexico, a Territory where the Mexican law
mad abolished slavery, and in the opinion of Mr.
" eoster, Mr.. Clay, and many other prominent men,
was ID full force, and sufficient to keep out slavery
ana also that the people there We're as foreigners
understood to be hostile to the establishment of
slavery In any way. In short that as these promi-
nent gentlemen said, the North got the territory
practically, while of the South got only the nrin.
cple of non-intervention for the future This prin
cpie highly valuable in itself, they did not intend
10 apply TO the organization of other Territories
Inc condnct OF these persons shows that they did
NOT IN good faith, intend to adopt the system as
genera one Hence, when afterwards this was de-
clared to be settlement in "orinciDle and sub
stance by Mr.. Fillmore and the national conven.
THESE persons only pretended to agree to the
uecaratlon Their conduct now shows their iusin-
cerlty, and the hollowness of their professions
But Mr. Chairman, it is sometimes said by gen
temen that this Missouri compromise was originally
advantageous to the South and that now when 4 4
has ceased to be So we want to get clear of * Let
US ooA at this statement for one moment
Missouri and Arkansas were admitted &C s,.vo
states, Their extent was hundred and seven
teen Thousand square miles. But on the other
hahu, Iowa was admitted as free State and Min +
neso.a was organized as Territory also with a res
trl N upon or prohibition of slavery So also T.
were Oregon and Washington Now sir these
fhp Stafo =