The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-11

like he rest Of the people Inc Of their
ion Az this moment The country esounds with elamor
taon, because proposed that Congress should abure
ne exercise OF irresponsible power, and leave the people Of
inc lerories established by this bill to the enjoyment OF
their rights OF selfgovernment.
ny what process OF reasoning would inquire, do
rive al me conclusion that the citizens Of the States when
they enter one OF your Territories become Invested of The
rght OF sefgoyenmenf BY virtue of what authority do
you mus dsfranehse and strip OF the prerogaves OF free
men me hardy and adventurous pioneer who goes forth TO
extend me empire OF The repubcs Show me the clause
OF The constitution which authorizes such despoc exercise
OF power SHOW the clause of the constitution which
authorizes you TO discriminate between the Territories of
Utah and New Mexico and those be created by this bill
Why should restrictions be imposed on Nebraska and
Kansas to which Utah and New Mexico subjected
Is there conflict between the principle and of
the bill establishing the Terrloes Of Utah and New Mex
and the present bill have been able discover
any The principles of self government and tho nonnter
yenton OF Congress their domestic concerns, asserted
alike 10 both.
Well then if 1t does not conflict with the provisions of
the constitutions with the bills establishing the erilo
OF Utah and New Mexico, with wat act of previous
legislation does II conflict Why, sir, conflicts with the
ghlh section Of the of 1920 commonly but enormously
called the Missouri Compromise land ,hls II proposes TO
repeal us being inconsistent with the principle of non-in
PREVENTION by Congress with slavery 10 the States and Fer
rtores recognised by the legislation of 1885, commonly
called the compromise measures" being the true intent
and meang of the act of epean not TO egisae slavery
INTO any Territory State exclude therefrom but
to leave the people thereof perfectly free form and regu
late their domestic institutions in their way, subject
only 10 the constitution OF the United States"
BY the Missouri of $780, rights and privileges were
conferred portion of the people of the United States
which denied to another portion This bill Mr.. Pres
dent will be pc, eeiyed makes invldous dstnc
ton But all citizens of the United Sta entitled UNI
der its provisions, the same and equal rights Sir the
people Of the United Suites will never submit to any inc
quality in the enjoyment OF political rights, nor can you
cdrsttutionaily create any such inequality.
The second of the fourth article of the constitution
provides the citizens of each State shall be entitled to
ali privileges and mmanes of citizens of the several
I'm
permits the introduction into Territory OF the United
States Of every species Of properly which New England
may possess New England and denies that right TO
vrginan with regard to his property IN Virginia does
ask that conform with that clause of the constitution
which have just cited Sir creates the exact inequality
the constitution prohibits. The New Highlander enjoys a
right and immunity with respect the removal USE and
disposal Of his properly which Vginan does not enjoy
The constitution Gays northern man and southern man
shall have equal rights The Missouri act says ey snail
not. Ia this concord
The property of the southern planter consists mainly or
in great measure, In slaves The constitution recognises
his right 10 this property because, among other things
provides for recnplure and rendition the when
has escaped from State into another Yet this prop
ery though thus recognised the prohbloy clause OF the
Missouri will permit the planter to take with him
into any Territory sub to the prohibition of SO deg 80
north latitude. THIS, too, the only species of prop
cry excluded The stock the merchandise the machinery
of every section of the country all freely
peculiar property of The southern planter alone excluded
And convenient announcement removal of this prop
right,
Now, is this inequality just constitutional Well, sir
if constitutional whence is this power OF exclusion,
this power inequality, deriycds Is derived from
any between the people of the North and
the South Can any bargain in favor of such inequality be
Shown Did The free States exclusively the country
covered by the Missouri Compromise and did they cede IT
the United States with reservation that Congress should
permit them to take their property into this REGION but
should prohibit the southern planter from taking his prop
erty into the same district
such history The records of this govern
ment The district which IL proposed 10 incorporate into
the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska is portion of that
region which purchased from France and called the
Louisiana purchase 1t paid for out Of the
treasury the United Sateshe east the middle and the
southern States all contributing their just proportions with
which effect the purchase. They ALL therefore, became
joint partners, equally entitled TO enter upon and ENJOY
these possessions.
Well if the lands were thus acquired by purchase and
paid for from the funds of oil the States for the
benefit of the people of all there any special
anecedent agreement which modified their and which
gave people of the free States any exclusive right TO
monopolize them No such agreement exists. The only
existing between the States soemny scknowl
edged and ratified by them ALL which can control the use
disposition of these lands, the agreement commonly
called the constitution of the United States Signed sealed
and delivered with all due soemnites the l7th of Sep
tenber 1871 This the only agreement understanding
which reference be made TO ascertain the rights aud
privileges Of the parties IT, And what does this
sayl ltdeclaresi
That the citizens of each State shall be entitled equal
rights and with the citizens of the several States
That was the agreement which controlled the and dis
OF these lands but
contract was utterly disregardsd by the act of lo2o And
this mere Of Congress held TO be the controlling
compact though overriding and multiplying the provisions
| Of the constitution.
The constitution overlooked dsregarded by the OPP
popents of this b and the act Of lS2Us made by them TO
lake m place and invested with all the sanctty and ire
which properly belongs TO that instrument
alone The 1920 usups the prcrogtves Of the con-
suton and required to recognise tolerate,
| and continue this usurpauon
Me- President the right of Congress TO make laws,
GLIDING slavery from these Territories, know is claimed
and defended by Of that clause OF the third secon OF
the fourth arce of constitution which provides that
Consress shall have power make all needul rules and
regulations respecting the territory other property of the
| United stAtes.n
But who that II this clause coners power 10
excude slavery on ground that such exclusion is need
full that on the same ground may be construed TO con-
fer the 20 yer To establish fern OF religion IN preference
10 ,pother or m fact do anything which despolc power
has ever assumed TO do Such construction would con-
fer unlimited power which It will hardly be maintained
| that Congress possesses
But II Congress Is invested with the power to make rules
and regulations for Territories and other property OF the
Unired States me, AR, that this power must be
exercised IN subordinauon the express ARTICLES Of the
| oopstiiution and not in violation Of them.
Congress may make rules and regulations, but At seems
Main air that these rules end regulations must be controlled
by the higher authority and gnIy Of the constitution.
But again The actually conferred 90 Congrs Us ~
only power 10 make needfu rules and regulations for the
territory and other property Of the United States But
the advocates Of RESTRICTION claim by virtue Of this clause
to make rules regulations controlling the rights and
use OF the property Of OF the States well as tho
property OF The United States. The property Of the
limited States il one thing the property Of the citizens
composing the United State Is quite another thing.