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

drew the protection given by any all of these laws the
not be restored All but II may be asked s ii comp,
tent 20 Congress to withhold the protection given
slavery by the Constitution See sir, how plain
IS viii put down this inquiry Either the Constitution
gives protection to slavery II does II it does
then there is end Of the argument. IT. however, th
Constitution does give this protection then this consttu
tonal protection is either such may be withdrawn
f Congress such be withdrawn by Congress
If it is such may be withdrawn by an act Of Congress
then, if it competent to Congress to Withdraw it i
1920 il is equally competent say il shall not
restored IT, on the other hand this constitutional pro
lection such could not be withdrawn by Congress
then it not Withdrawn by the act Of 1920 We hav
had it ell along The bill gives nothing in addition t
what we had before The proviso does exactly what thu
Missouri restriction did, Ii leaves the protector
of the Constitution it is because it help it
therefore the Of 1920 also left the protection of h
Constitution because it could not help it. 1t reyives
law that exugushed by Congress; and it, under the
present bill, the Constitution which is the supreme law
will protect slavery ii is because this constitutional pro-
lection extnguished by Congress.
1t will not do, then, for gentlemen to talk vaguely
about this bill securing to the protection OF the Con-
stution, and of going before the with this
protection thrown around have shown that if we
have this protection from the supreme law it Is in spite
of this bill and Of the act of 1920 aso and if gentlemen
maintain that though the proyiso declares that law
that protected slavery before 1920 shall be revived or PIT
force, it is invalid and imperative far it applies
to the Constitution which is the supreme law and there
fore that courts would decide that
tent to Congress to deprive the STAKEHOLDER of his cons
tnonGl rights all have to say is that this is the first
time have ever known the passage Of law recommend
| ed upon the ground thet it was unconstitutional.
But it is argued that this amendment is harmless be-
the bill already prevented the revival of any laws
protecting slavery do not give any such effect the
BILL This is my construction Of it. upon the first and
second clauses alone and without the proyso Congress
first repeats the Missouri restriction and then declare
that they do not egate slavery into the Territory that
is to say they will not compel the people to have slavery
against their will. They do not exclude it therefrom
that is to say they will not hinder them from having
slavery if they want it. But they leave the people per-
ecty free to frame and regulate their domestic nsttu
tons in their own way, according to the Constitution.
What people Why, all who please to go there from the
| South and the North, Shareholders and others How
are they to be perfectly free? Why, by standing
equal footing and having equal voice in fixing the
dioI of the Territory to slavery otherwise Every
law regulation necessary for the protection Of the slave
HOLDER and every law regulation necessary for the
lection of the may be enjoyed both until
the whole people shall determine the character of their in
situations 1t is true that while the act repeats the pro-
hbiton it authorizes the people to it, But IN the
time 1t stands repealed Under the provso Congress-
repeats much Of the restriction prohibits slavery
forever" and authorizes the people to admit slavery
6n IN he mean time the restriction stands anrpedlsd
There is wide distinction between the two bills But
is said that one is just like the other Like the other
There is feature of resemblance between them
The young and vigorous laborer is not unlike
------" The lean and sippered rantaloon-
But is said that the provso effected change in the
bill, because the effect would be produced by the
civil law which prevails in louisiana and which provides
TINT the repeal of repeating statute shall not revive the
statute that repealed. Yes, there learned dis
cusson to the effect Of the civil law in reyying the
extinguished laws of Louisiana if the question to
the effect Of the repeal of Congressional statute by
another Congressional statute was question Of civil law
1t lie also said that at law the question 10 the
revival Of repealed statute is Of intent and that it
the intent of the bill that law regulation should
be revived giving protection to the Shareholder; and
therefore the provso merely this intent in plain
words Indeed Was it the intent of the bill that the
STAKEHOLDER should be denied such protection What,
then becomes Of the arguments of those who maintain
that even and in spite of the prcvso, he will have
ample protection and that twas and is the intent of the
bin to secure sucK protection
Sir, vague idea to be prevailing that the Ne
braska country has before been included within the
limits Of any territorial organization, and that
now, for the first time, to establish government for it;
that law existed there but the civil French
law and that the French law, being the only that
allowed slavery repealed by the net of 1920. The
distinguished gentleman who offered the proviso MIR,
BADGER to labor under the misconception.
Speaking of the pro-sayery law which existed in the
Territory when acquired it from France and of the
Missouri compromise law, he says:
"Thesc the only laws upon the subject the only
two laws that had been in force There law
horzng slavery when the Territory belonged to France BY
| the act of 1920 that law was annued." .aE >v
Now sir, affirm that each and every Of these pro-
positions is incorrect We for the first time
about form Territorial Government for the Nebraska
country 1t included within the limits of organ
lied Territorial Government for nearly twenty years.
will presently show We have had other kinds of law
there besides civil law We had not only French law but
American law; yes, and American statute law yes and
Congressional statute law yes and Congressional statute
law protecting slavery? And, what is more these laws
have never been repealed need not go into any sub
tile dsquisiton the effect produced by the repeal Of
repeating statute say that these laws have never
been repealed, as will proceed presently to show
We acquired this Territory in 1903 under the treaty
with France, which conveyed Louisiana to the United
States In October 1903, act Of Congress passed
providing temporary government for the whole Terri
tory, protecting the inhabitants in the free enjoyment Of
their liberty and property. In 1904 the province
divided into two Territories Orleans and Louisiana The
law provided that all that part Of the province of Lous
which lay to the north OF $50 north latitude should
be called the Territory of Louisiana and the other por-
ton which lay to the south of that line should be called
the Territory Of Orleans And that placed Louisiana
under the control of the Territorial Government of Ind
that is to say all that part which lay to the north
Of 3o placed under the control of the Territorial Gov
eminent of Indiana This act limited to year.
In 1905 that limitation repealed, and Louisiana
thus permanently placed under the Territorial govern
nent of Indiana In 1912 there another act passed.
changing the Of the Territory of Louisiana to that
Of Missouri, and organizing government for it in
dependent OF the government OF Indiana Territory pro-
yding for the appointment of Governor General Assem-
4 bly,, judges, &c.
The Of 1920 authorized the people of the Missouri
Territory within the limits embraced by the State of
Missouri, to form State constitution and Nebraska
being then part of the organized Territory of Missouri
excluded from that State in the formation of the State
constitution. From that time this, from 1S20or
.ha-tr a;ya1 Stata