Washington sentinel., 1854-03-05
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
OF HON. JOHN PETIT,
(coScLUDED.)
OF INDIANA.
In the Senate, February 20.

that this government had unlimited power over
the Territories.
-"that these six articles OF the ordinance wero
forever binding, unless altered by mutual consent;
and thai no one in Indiana had ever been silly
enough 10 doubt the validity of the ordnance"
The senator took it very hard, because in
timated that senator or man in Michigan
not in Indiana--had been !" silly enough to
suppose that the six articles Of the ordinance
of 1887 were not obligatory and binding /
repeat, that no man entitled to credit or respect
in Indiana ever entertained doubt upon that
subject. l shall show the senator, in answer
to the questions put me, that there is no such
power. The senator continues:
8. Il is not the validity of the ordinance we are
now seeking ordinary act OF legislation, bui
its inviolabiliiy or perpetual obligation.
say il is perpetual in its obligation, unless
by mutual consent / do not say il is inviola-
BILE, for both parties may consent to its repeal.
.sThe speaker eonfounds Two propositions en-
trey different in their nature.
I think I have not, but think he has.
have not said that the ordinance was inviola-
bic and irrepealable. but | have said that it
was contract that could only be superseded
by the two governments, State and national.
But, waving the question of propriety on the
part Of senator of his high standing, his
erudition, his political position for whose ele-
vation had long, and largely, and loudly
laborel heretofore standing in the Senate OF
the United States, of putting questions to an
individual in private life, upon the banks of
the W abash and q not of the Neva,'' say TO
him that I have come here to-day to answer
his questions. He proceeds:
. Let me ask him il any one in Indiana ever
doubted The power OF the people OF that State 10
assemble in convention, and 10 Introduce slavery
there, # they pleased? To abolish the English
common law, and substitute the code Napoleon.
or the Louisiana code, or even the eoHfnhas de
Paris, which al time The law of
part of Indiana, change the nature OF bail for
ofenses or find a better remedy tor the preserva-
tion of personal liberty than the writ OF habeas cor
pas 2-all which declared by the ordnance 10
be forever unalieIabe, but by common consent
or. in other words, they questions of internal
policy, which the people not sovereign enough
totouch without the consent of Congress-"
Yes, sir, l can say to the senator that no man
in Indiana ever believed that such thing
could be done, and shall show that not only
were we bound, by the terms of the settlement
not to introduce slavery there, but we were
bound in our sovereign capacity, before we
were admitted into this Union, 10 adopt con-
stitution perpetuating and embalming forever
the ordinance of 1857. But the senator pro-
ceeds:
= had supposed, till now, that the new States
were admitted into the Union an equal footing
with The original States, in all respects what
ever taat#s st.st y q, esf @e tr
will stop here, and turn catechist. and
make the senator from Michigan my catechu.
men; and wish to know how and where, and
by what learning, and by what authority, that
senator thought that the new States had to be
admitted upon an equal footing with the origi-
nal States? How came he to entertain any
such thought or idea? Not from the Consti
tuition, which he reverences and worships,
and which he so ably Tin his own estima-
tion) expounds. Not there, but from the
ordinance Of 1887. There is the first place,
and that was the first time, where it was ever
stipulated that the new States should come in
on an equal footing with the original States.
There, in that very instrument, which he af
frmed IN one instance and denied in the other,
is this phrase to be found. If you can repeal
and abrogate the ordinance as to one thing,
why not as TO another? If you are bound TO
admit new States on equal footing with the
original States under that ordinance, must you
not sustain the remainder of the ordinance on
the same ground? All must stand or fall to-
gether. No provision of the kind is to be found
in the Constitution. Nothing is there said
about admitting new States on an equal foot
ing with the original States. The only provi
sion of the Constitution upon the subject is,
that Congress shall have power to admit new
States
The provision that they should come in on
an equal footing with the original States is
found in the ordinance of 1887. / grant you
that the ordinance is obligatory and binding in
this respect that it was then, is now, and l
trust will ever be for | am satisfied that on
this point therewill be no such thing as mutual
consent, for no State coming into this Union
will be willing to be shorn of her political
equality. Here let me say that he, who, in
free country, under free government, seeks
more rights and privileges than is common to
all his feow-citizens, is a thief and robber,
and he who tamely submits to be shorn of his
equality is coward and craven. / have no
fear that any State will ever submit to be shorn
of its political equality when coming into this
Union.
But what did the provision mean, that the
new States should come in upon equal
footing with the original States? Did that
mean that they should have the same poll
teal internal policy? It simply meant that,
when admitted, they should have the same
political power, representation and influence
as the other States had in this government J
that they should be admitted into the Union
upon the same footing, with the same politi-
cal powers, rights, and duties which the other
States had with reference to this govern
ment, and in this government, as constituent
however, TO read the residue of the senator's
remarks on this point
But if this doctrine Of the perpetual obligation
OF this ordinance be correct, the new States and
the old states occupy very different positions in
deed and The powers of the latter are much great
than those OF the former. As a citizen of the
northwest. object toto colo, TO this humiliating
difference and | doubt if the gentleman will find
many converts 10 his opinion in his own Siate.n
Now, If the senator objects to this, he objects
in vain. If this is a political inequality. let
me tell him that neither his own State of Mich.
igan, nor any new State in which public lands
lie, except Texas, has been, or ever will be- ad
mitted on an equal footing with the original
States. If there is any one thing more than
another which pertains to sovereignty, it is the
disposition of the soil within the bounds or