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

ment OF all the rights, advantages, and lmmu-
mites OF citizens of the United States, and, IN
the mean time, to be maintained and protected
IN the free enjoyment Of their liberty, property,
and the religion which they protested, then
they have right, when admitted as States, to
come into the Union with or without slavery,
as the people may elect. Upon this point, in
1850, when speaking of the treaty and consii.
tutional rights of the people of Utah and New
Mexico to come into the Union with or without
slavery, as the people shall elect, ! am re-
ported to have said:
" In my judgment this is not an open question.
Whenever Stale form ed out of any of this Ter
rlory shall present itselffor admission al proper
time, and under proper circumstances, hold that
il is not in the power OF Congress, in the proper
exercise Of lis duties, 10 exclude such State be-
its constitution prohibits toleraes the in
stitntion of domestic slavery"
My opinion is unchanged.
How long is it since this line Of ace 30I has
become so Observation-Disclosures years old--so
sacred so precious, and inviolate? How long
is it since the senators from Ohio and New
York would start back from it as they would
from the touch of the viper?
Sir, if recollect Alright, after the omnibus
OF 1850 had been upset in this body, and no
thing remained in it but the Utah terrific.
rial bill, the honorable senator from Illinois
moved that the southern boundary line Of that
territory should be on the line of $50 30<.
What was then said and done2 My late col.
league, Mr.. Hale, whom the senators from
Ohio and New York always acted with upon
questions of the kind, Che was their Jupiter
Tonans in this body,) arose and said:
- wish TO say word why shall vote against
the amendment. ] shall vote against $50 80, be-
cause think there is an implication in IT, will
vote for 37o or 36o either, just il is convenient;
but il is idle 10 shut our eyes 10 the fact that there
is attempt in this bill will not say i, is The in
tention Of the mover--to pledge this Senate aud
Congress TO the imaginary line of 36o 3U because
there are some historical recollcctions connected
with il in regard TO this controversy about slavery.
will content myself with saying that never
will, by vote or speech, admit or SUBMIT to any
thing that may bind the action OF our legislation
here to make the parallel of $50 30 the boundary
line between slave and free territory. And when
say that. explain the reason why go against
the amendment"
have read the whole speech, and the only
speech made against that amendment No,
sir he never would submit to anything, the
Missouri compromise or anything else, to bind
our legislation to make the boundary line be-
tween slave and free territory on the parallel Of
$50 30/. Here, sir the leader of the selfstyed
champions Of freedom in this chamber in 1850,
declared that the Missouri compromise had
and should have no binding effect upon our
legislation here. In my judgment he was
right, and / sustained him by my vote. But
where were the senators from Ohio and New
York, who were here then and are now here?
Did they sound the alarm? Did they then de.
nounce this doctrine of my late colleague "as
gross violation of a sacred pledge; as q crimi.
nal betrayal of precious rights; as part and
parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a
vast unoccupied region immigrants from the
IL onl T,oaT 1,L
States, and convert it into dreary region of
despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves?'
No, sir, no; they followed the command of
their leader. They backed his speech with
their votes. They declared to the Senate and
the country that they never would submit that
the Missouri compromise line should be the
boundary line between slave and free territory.
Sir, stood with them then, and stand there
now, but where are they? They have deserted
the platform, and arraign me as yiolator of a
sacred pledge, and the enemy of freedom for
standing upon it.
Now, sir, / have question to put to both Of
these honorable senators from Ohio and Mas
sachusetts, Messrs. CHASE and SUMNER Will
they stand BY and faithfully execute the proviso
of the eighth section Of that compromise, ac-
cording to the laws of the land? The proviso
is in the following words; viii repeat it:
the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any State or Territory Of the United
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed
and conveyed 10 the person claiming his or her
labor or service aforesaid" ...
Now, sir, if this Territory be organized with
the usual provisions that "the Constitution and
laws of the United States which are not locally
inapplicable should have the same force and
effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as
elsewhere within the United States" is not the
fugitive slave law carried there in full force and
effect, if not by the Constitution of the United
States, yet by this proviso? How can the fugi
tive slave law be said to be locally inappicabe
under the proviso? No one, presume, will
say that Sir, that proviso was enacted fer the
express purpose Of executing that provision of
the Constitution for the return Of fugitives from
labor or service within thisvery Territory; and
of course, is as sacred and inviolable as any
other part of the compromise. Now the direct
question put to these senators is, were they
citizens of the Nebraska Territory, would they
insist upon or even aid in the execution of the
fugitive law within that Territory? Sir, with
their recorded opinions, it seems to me they
could not. 1s this one of the sacred pledges,
one Of the precious rights, secured by that in.
violable and irrepealable compact? No, sir;
instead of that; this compact must it seems to
me, be denounced by them as measure Of
cruelty, barbarity, and oppression. should
like to know the opinion of these senator's;
what do they think of the proviso portion Of
this sacred compact; does it smack of freedom
enough to be denominated sacred and precious?
Mr.. SUMNER. Does the senator desire me
to answer the question now? If he does, /
will do so.
Mr.. NORRIS. Not now; will first put an.
other question to him. If the territorial legis-
lature of Nebraska should pass fugve slave
law, that any negro slave escaping into the Ter
ritory should be recaptured, would the senator
if living there, aid in the execution Of such
law?
Mr.. WADE. The senator has put ques.
ton to the State Of Ohio; am ready to an
swer it.
Mr.. NORRIS. put the question to the
senator's colleague, Mr.. CHASE.
Mr.. SUMNER. / stated my readiness to
answer the senator's question, so far as was
NJ, NJ