Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-14

"uShu ana hdNSuS.
Mr.. NORRIS said
Mr.. PRESIDENT: regret very much the ne
cessity of trespassing upon the time of the
Senate. 1t is what | am very 10th to do, and
it is what very seldom have done; but am
unwilling that the question shall be taken upon
this bill without assigning some of the reasons
for the vote intend to give upon it. know, in
doing this, am violating what supposed to be
an unalterabe determination on my part, never
to discuss the subject of slavery, or any question
connected with it, in this chamber. l shall
conhne what | have to say to that part of the
fourteenth section of the bill, as it has been
amended on the motion of the senators from
Illinois and North Carolina, and which reads
as follows
"That the Constitution. and all laws of the Uni
ted States, which moi locally nappllcable, 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 10 the admission of Missouri into
the Union, approved March 6, 1920, which, being
inconsistent with the principle OF non-inieryen-
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 f; IL being
the true intent and meaning OF this act not TO les
late slavery into any Territory or State nor 10 ex
cude il iherefrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free 10 form and regulate their domes-
tic institutions in their own way, subject only 10
the Constitution of the United States ProUt9ed,
That nothing herein contained shall be construed
10 revive or put in force any law or regulation
which may have existed prior 10 the OF the
9th of March, 1870, either protecting establishing,
prohibiting, or abolishing slavery"
Sir, it seems to me that the senator from
Massachusetts, Mr.. EyERETrl might well have
spared his criticism upon this clause in the bill.
Surely there is nothing here such rs he sup
poses about enacting n principle. There
seems to me to be broad distinction between
the enacting of a principle and in grounding
our acts Of legislation on principle. | charl-
tably hope the senator does not, and am sure
he does not, mean to say that we are not to rec.
ognise principle in our legislation. If he does
not then it seems to me his criticism falls TO
the ground. There is nothing in it.
Now sir, understand the spirit and true in
tent Of this clause of the bill to be, that the
legislation Of 1850, organizing the Territories
of Utah and New Mexico, was grounded on the
principle Of the non-intervention of Congress
with the institution Of slavery, or any other do
mestic institution, in the Territories Of the
United States. and the States to be formed out
of them, leaving the people free to form their
own institutions for themselves: aud that the
principle of legislation thus agreed upon and
established, as to Utah and New Mexico,
ought to be final, not only as to those Terri
tories, but as to all Territories organized after
that time.
But sir, the senator, in commenting on this
clause in the bill, says:
If anything more is meant than that certain
measure adopted and enacted in reference 10
those Territories Utah and New Mexico, | take
issue on that point"
Now, with all due Difference to the senator,
must be permitted to say, this sounds not
little like special pleading-more like the lawyer
than the statesman. The issue which the sena-
tor presents is not legitimate to the premises,
and is, therefore, immaterial The question is
not whether the particular acts, IN specific
terms, organizing the Territories of Utah and
New Mexico, had reference to them alone, but
it is whether Congress, in that legislation, after
full discussion, established the doctrine Of non:
intervention on the part of Congress touching
the subject of slavery in those Territories, and
the States to be formed out of such Territories.
Now, shall endeavor to maintain that the
doctrine of non-interference on the part OF the
federal government with the institutions of the
organized Territories was then established !;
leaving to the people Of the Territories the
rights of free and popular government, with
full power under the Constitution to form their
own domestic institutions as they may deem
best suited to their condition. shall endearor
another fact that this measure of non-interven-
: ton was carried by the almost united vote of
the north against the great mass of southern
senators in this chamber, as establishing prin-
ciple on which the north could stand, and not
as mere expedent, temporary and limited in
its operation, but as enduring. | will, by and
by, appeal to the record in vndicaton Of what
j now say.
Before proceed to that, however, allow me
to remark, that the friends of this bill have
been reminded With an air of apparent tri-
umph, that the two great political parties, in
their conventions at Baltimore, in 1852, de-
clared the measures of 1850 to be tinality.
Well, sir that is true. But how can measures
grounded upon principle Of action in organic
ing Territory to-day-the principle Of non.in-
PREVENTION, if you WILDE called fnality,
which. in the organization Of another Terri
tory tomorrow, are to be wholly disregarded,
and measures grounded upon principle of
action directly opposed established in their
stead? Do senators assume ut seems TO me
they must assume it. or yield the argument)
that the term "inality" applies to the measures
of 1850, and not to the principle upon which
they we're based? Ifso, the declaration OF the
two political parties, made to the country pre-
vious to the late presidential election, IS moth
ing more than mockery--a mere mockery.
If the declaration dld not mean tnaL those mes-
sures, grounded as they were on particular
principle of action, were to be final rule to
be observed as to other Territories, then it was
mere truism, the assertion of fact indisputa-
BILE III past history and not only indisputable,
but universally acknowledged. Sir, if not a
declaration Of principle. it was worse than
mockery-it was fraud. How can a principle
Of action be called "fnality" which is not to
be adhered to single day? How can that be
called finality' upon the question Of slavery
in the Territories, which is applied to one Ter
ritory to-day, and wholly disregarded and re-
fused in the organization Of another tomorrow?
Sir, am / not right? it is not impossible
that before the end of the present session of
Congress another cession Of territory will be
made from Mexico to the United States. Well
sir. if that should take place, what is to be
done Senators say the measures Of 1880, and
Tho rr;ncinle nnon which they were based. were