Weekly national intelligencer., 1854-04-08
SPEECH OF Mr.. FRANKLIN,
OF MARYLAND,
ON TIE NEBRASKA QUESTI0
Hnnsn o. RrrnrsrsrAnrrs M.,oH as l854.

| ON THE NEBRAShA QUESTION .
House. OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAncH IS, 1854.
The House being in Committee Of the Whole or
the state of the Union
| Mr.. FRANKLIN said Mr.. Chairman, have no am
bon to occupy my hour but rise simply for the pur
pose Of assigning the which actuate in the
course intend to pursue in reference TO the Nebraska
and Kansas Territorial bills. was one of that small
band of gentlemen representing saveholdng consttu
encies in this House who voted the other day refer the
Senate bill for the organization of Territorial govern
ments for Nebraska and Kansas to the Committee of the
Whole the state OF the Union and voted TO refer
it, sir, because wished to dispose Of il in such man
that it could not be sprung upon the House with
little warning, and passed without that considera-
ton and close analysis which it mertsd at our hands.
The nonnterventon OF Congress the subject Of slave
ry in the Territories of the United States which this b
is said TO contain, distinctly myself TO
be in favor of but its provisions, it to from
the Senate by which non-intervenon is said To be
cured, odious to that preferred TO see it
consigned to the deep bosom Of the Committee of the
Whole from whence it may possibly emerge than
the probability of its passing this House in is present
anomalous and as believe, mischieyous form.
now proceed to state the reasons which have brought
me to this view of that bill, and they reasons which
entertain stakeholder and friend of the union
of these States. The principles to which object are
contained in the following words which will read in
order that my remarks may be applied Ms 60 along:
"Tbat the Constitution and ali tho laws Of the Unite
States which not locally napplicabe shall have the
force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska
elsewhere within the United States except the 8h section Of
the act to the admission Of Missouri into the
Union, approved March Q, 1920"
If the bill had stopped here and gone no further the
principle contained in it would have met my Sarmest
appreciation. should have hailed it as indicating the
return of that of good feeling among the different
members of this Confederacy which oil anxious
to see That clause of the act would according to my
judgment have settled the question Of noniDtervenon
upon that basis and that basis alone on which it could
be permanently and satisfactorily established But
sir, those who drew this bill well knew, presume
that in this form it would not meet the appreciation
North; who, whatever they might be willing to concede
principle to apply future acquisitions, would not
consent to the unqualified repeal Of what they considered
compact and the consequent revival Of the antecedent
status Of the Territory As concession to the tender
conscenccs OF these gentlemen, they suboin the follow
ing explanation and proIso:
(Which being inconsistent the principles Of non inter
ventioR by Congress with slavery the States and Terrific
es recognised by Of 1850 commonly called
the compromise measures, hereby declared imperative
void it being the true intent sud meaning this act not to
legislao slavery into Territory State exclude
form and regulate their domestic in their own way
suect only to the Constitution of tho United States
rde That nothing herein contained shall be construed
revive or put la force any law regulation which may have
existed prior to the 9th of March, lS20 either protecting
establishing, prohibiting, or abOlishing slavery"
The most casual reader of this part Of the section will
observe that the evident intention Of its trainers was to
establish principle the principle of Intervention by
Congressional legislation upon the subject of slavery in
the States Territories. have already said that with
this principle make no war friendly to it, and will
not vote for measure which tends establish as
the policy Of this Government. But assert sir that
while the bill processes that doctrine it does not apply it
to the Nebraska and Kansas Territory. 1t leaves that
portion OF Louisiana in bad condition. in reference
to slavery, as it was before and the whole section is
to be taken as the exponent Of the principle intended to
be established that in all acquired tcrrtsry where
slavery already exists the laws protecting are to be
abolished and where it does not exist the condition of
things not to be disturbed The very clause of the bill
which am discussing does recognise and affirm the in.
reference of Congress with slavery in these Territories
For an explanation Of tho term non-intervenon we
must look to the compromise of 1850 upon the principles
Of which this bill processes to be based The particular
measures Of that compromise which formed its model
presume the acts which provide for the organization
of the Territories of Utah and New Mexico It might
be supposed that these consisting of domain acquired
from foreign Power, with all the laws and institutions
OF that foreign Power attaching to resembling as they
did in this respect the Territories are now eneayor
ing to organize would bo suitable from whence
to draw the principles of this bill Indeed il we are to
believe the language of this section slavery in Nebraska
and kansas is stand upon the footing precisely MS
does in Utah and New Mexico But how is the fact
In the tter 1t rests upon the law prevailing there when
We acquired them that is it is excluded until legisated
H. In the former, is the status to slavery to remain
as it was by the law Of Louisiana when was purchased
until changed by legislative aoonf Let the following
language of the bill answer
being the true intent and meaning of this act not to
egate slavery into any Territory State exclude
therefron but to leave the people thereof perfectly
to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own
way subject only to the Constitution of the United Sates
frovidsd That nothing herein contained shall bs
to revive put in force any law regulation which may
nave existed prior to the act OF 9th IF March, 1872 either
protecting establishing prohibiting abolishing slavery"
Now, sir, put it to the candor of gentlemen in this
House if this language places this Of the Lous
ana territory upon the footing with Utah and New
Mexico! ls there not Congressional Intervention still
remaining which this Congress has right to remove
that prevents the restoration Of Kansas and Nebraska to
the status it occupied in reference to slavery the time
OF Its acquisition And ifso, is the principle established
as lhe policy OF the Government while its non-appcaon
to those Territories continues! What the facts 1t
IS conceded that by the French law in force when Lous
ana was purchased, slavery in these Territories might
exist and would be protected 1t must also be conceded
that since the Missouri passed in 1920 assuming that
ac 70 De constitutional, slavery has been excluded from
'hen ny means OF Congressional Intervention. If the
seal OF dsapprobason Is to be placed upon that nterve
ton In consequence Of its unconstitutionay its in
justice per Sc it can only be done by placing the Terri
.ory lu the same condition. far you have the power
that ~ would occupy if the Missouri compromise had
never been passed Any thing short Of that recognises
ana atrms Congressional intervention to the
tent to which you limit the repeal Of the obnoxious law
nucn mas been said and able arguments used to show
het ny the Spanish law or by other regulation
sng IN nat Territory, the simple repeal Of the act Of
oLo would not revive the existing otus Of the
Try as to slavery Now, sir do intend to stop by
the waysde to argue this point 1t ably treated
ny the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MILL
SOM tnaI think no doubt rcst upon any rational
OF tue whole matter lie Of possible consequence how
tnat question may be decided. If the principle Of
intervention IS to be bona the controlling principle in
sne organization OF these Territories aver that be