The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-21

not under that from which II Is said TO be derived in any
way Still those who claim To be the special friends of
freedom insist that il shall take from IL this law OF slavery
though il take nothing else They go thus far they
determined TO stretch this rule Of altogether beyond
proper and proportions In order find protect and
preserve this old French law OF slavery in this Territory Of
Nebraska They go further and make this proayery law
live space Of thirty forty years with gora-
ea 10 which ii belonged, whose law ii people
to whom IL belonged whose law ii wasn order that
they may have it to attach 10 this people and their
government which about TO organize Verify for
men who hate slavery they go great ways after law TO
protect much further than those they politely call pro-
slavery went--to do them Justice much further
than they themselves would go but for the sake Of
argument against this Indeed, to my mind il is
doubtful whether those who really in their hearts OPP
posed to this measure who really do not believe in local
selgoyernment are the dscoserers of this old French law
objection rather the idea Of those who want it
for voting against principle they profess TO be in
favor Of
Shall we be told this law was the law Of this govern
mentthe law of Congresswhile there other gov
to sustain ito uphold itupon this Territory
Well would like to know by what process il became So
would like 10 know if it is good abolition doctrine that
this df the United States become the sup
porter and nphodar OF slavery by intendmen-by imp
eationeven if il can in any way And would like to
know when this law became the law Of Congress-when
became the and the holders of H. and RESPONSE
Bile for it Was ii when the Territory acquired
The local had control oft after that Was it
when this Territory was separated from and LETT without
conquest acquisition OF any SORT and not therefore,
within the rule.
But ifhis old French law has become the law of Con-
gress Of this government by any whatsoever by
adoption otherwise if Congress is, has been
sustaining upholdng this law of slavery then has Con-
gress been intervening protect slavery and the
do away with this Intervention the better. Fit is the
law of Congress, responsible for tive, the Con-
gress of the United States by whatever it has be-
law. If we took it from the government of
France it is the less for that If took it to
ourselves when separated this territory from all terri
tory having organized government it is none the less
ours for that fit is our law have the power and the
right to repeal it. and long do not do it, sus-
tain it. intervene protect slavery. lie who contin-
es wrong is just as much wrone-doe as he who origi-
mates it.
Unless you can have law which is the law of any
government of any people then this old French law is
no law the of Congress and if it is the latter
it is intervention just much the prohibition OF 1920 IS
intervention. 4a.
When therefore we repeal this law of 1920 prohibiting
slavery, if by implication inendment any law is re-
vved, it is law Of Congress which is revived. If not q
law of Congress by enactment it is by adoption and II
we do an act which revvcs il we become positively and
actively responsible for it. We merely passyey, but
positively and actively intervene and is only by guard
ing against this revival this bill does that prevent
this result.
i Understand me- Mr. Chairman, am reasoning upon
other mems premises mine do not believe took
the territory with slavery upon it, certainly not that il
would exist upon it if the prohibition OF 1920
had been enacted For this belief have assigned my
reasons do believe that if it would exist but
for that prohibition the repeal of the prohibitions it is
done by this BILL would revive the law for reasons which
have been well assigned by the distinguished senator
from North Carolina, Mr. BADGER, and by others, that
there necessity for spending time on that point
But il this would be the effect then if would act upon
the doctrine of non-nterventon provide against
this revival is done by the provso of the honorable
senator from North Carolina. In this way leave the
country free from all legislation this local mattera
bua rasd sheet of white paper ready TO receive impress
from the hands of those who may become its
inhabitants.
What effect this is to have upon the right take and
hold slaves there before laws shall be made the subject
do not deem it necessary here TO discuss If the prine-
pie be right ought to adopt it, and neither the North
the South ought complain of the effect Of the adop
Nv opinion is (and merely state i'll that in the alb
OF all the subject there is right no
legal power hold slaves That independently of human
: law all men are free And do believe the consu-
ton Of the United States NEEDLES with this question it
4 should be objected that this doctrine gives TO the free
States advantage those which tolerate slavery
answer if does nobody has any right TO complain IL
Gods law that gives that advantage and congressional
The people of all parts of the country have perfect right
20 into this Territory and they must each and all take
their chances what the institutions TO be established
by majority Of those going there shall be- Thus all arc
upon equality all subject TO the republican tribu
nal-the majority Of Themselves This sir is what call
congressional noninteryenton this subject And how
much fault may have been found with the word how
conemptuousy II may have been spoken here 1t u
; good, expressive word has good meaning, and shall
g continue 10 use IT.
20 for no nonnterventon which carries slavery into
Sebraskn does this bill carry 1t there To assert that
does describe itas bill for the extension of slavery i'm
plies either total msconcepton Of the provisions Of the bill
ing elevated than the old trick Of giving thing
f bad in order to prevent fair and candid examna
ton OF IT, II may succeed temporarily and partially Be
fore intelligent people II cannot succeed long exen
r siyely
One reason Mr. Chairman why favor this doctrine o
non-intervcnon why think il right and why think
its opposite Is wrong Isl that the former most in accord
with the letter and the spirit Of the constitution
;, der which we live.
know sir that reference TO the constitution has como
to be- in quarters almost unpopular thing II has
often stood in the Of the wishes Of men, the selfish
and ambitious the honest and phanthropo but mistaken
wishes Of men that to somel hope they very iew
= Is almost offensive mention IL; but il s nevertheless
u often wholesome TO do go In my Judgment we cannot
too often to its wise provisions cannot take toe
y much that proceeding within the letter and
n the spirit Of that sacred instrument
> We should always remember that this government II
Of limited powers that IL instituted for certain
general purposes which could be we'll IL at ALL
complshcd by local legislation but leaving designing
i to leave local legislation those which could That Il
the intention after the constitution itself had beer
framed and ratified the tenth amendment thereto wa,
adopted in the following language:
coaiufion prohibited By 10 the States reserves
q TO the States respectively, or to the people"
II would seem as though with this before rs Il wa,
hardly worth while 20 in search Of general
sity OF sovereignty real imaginary, to deriv,
powers in this government FROM Much has been said sir
G about Sovereignty" during the discussions this bill
the sovereignty Of this national government this Ter
ritory aud the sovereignty of the people nhabtng II
> From The derive unlimited power of legislation
in Con ares and the other others derive unlimited
power Of legislation in the people of the Tertories Now
these opposite conclusions pretty good evidence
that sovereignty very safe basis from which 10 dc
nj