The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-28

connected with The Legislation giving governments 10
Utah and New Mexico must control and explain the et
tect IN principle OF those laws After recent.
need say ibs ia 1850, The In which The new
Territories should be organized led to thorough discus
SION US 10 The policy 10 be adopted respecting slavery
Is II not notorious thai the Missouri COMPROMISE line
was considered and deliberately rejected Did not the
non sisytboicing States tgeneray) insist that iLe true
policy was Tie prohibition OF slavery in the Territories
OF the Union by act o Congress- and by
insist upon applying this principle Utah and New Mex
icof Ddnot lhe slaveholdng States. on The contrary,
planting themselves the ground OF federal nonnieI-
venon, RESIST this policy and by consequences, is adop
ton and application 10 those Territories And after a
long and fearful struggle, did not ihe latter doctrine
vail, and was II not carried into law Cor compact II
1 yon choose) in the New Mexico and Utah acts Did
mol the public, the press, conventions, and States ha
lhe result ss '6nal settlement in prinepie and cub
stance Of the sub6ci of slavery? And are we TO be
told thai the Compromise of 1850 adjustment
no bIoader than those Territories Are 10 have
on the orgsnization Of each new Terrtory Who iben
the sgaiors who are faithful 10 the Compromise
of 1852
Ii my conclusions correct as to the relations OF the
Compromise OF 1920 to thai OF 1850, and the true
naiute and OF the later follows thai the Tor
mer has carm resting good faith but that "pghi
I'd FAITH 10 the Compromise Of 1850 demands the re-
moval OF the Missouri prohibition do not contend
that The eighth section III the ACT OF 1870 was. in terms,
repealed by The adjustment OF 1850; il yet remains on
lhe book, and. ii constitutional. sti operative
But if non-Dierveption by Congress be the principle
that underles the Compromise Of 1850, then the pro.
hibuon OF 1870, being inconsistent With that principle,
established BY law.
Among he many MISREPRESENTATION sent 10 the conn-
try by OF the enemies oi this bill, perhaps none
is more fragrant than The charge thai proposes 10
legisa,s slavery INTO Nebraska and Kansas Sir, il
the bill contained such feature, could not receive
my TIE right TO esa tiE involves the coreisive
rgh, 10 prohibit. and denying both. would vote for
neither 90 further, and express the opinion that a
clause egahng slavery into those Territories could not
command southern vote in this House II Is due 10
both sections Of the country and 10 The people, TO expose
this groundess charge What. then is he present
diiun OF Nebraska and Kansas WHY, sir these is no
government no slavery and very Ie popaiason there,
remains on lbe sslnie-book forever prohibiting slavery
in these Territories. II proposed SIMPLY 10 lake OH tins
Prohibition, bat not % make an tuacnent N anrlnanes
shiBs slavery in that rseoD previous 70 the rohlbory
ACT IL is too clear Tor dispute that ihe repeal 0 ihe pro-
hbition has BOT the affirmative eec OF 6xiag slavery
thai eouniry The esctos the repeal therefore, neither
to establish 10 exclude, bot 10 leave the iuufe con-
don c the Territories dependent wholly oH TIE action
Of he inhabitafs subject only 10 such imitpons The
federal constitution may impose Bat to gasrS fully
against homes. misconsirucon, and even against mali
eryeTsion. the iaDg unse OF The bill is perfectly
picii on this pclni
That consultation, ana all laws Of the United Saies
wkeh MOI locally ha PPlcaee shall bays me same
aud effect within te said TerIIsoy Of Aebaska as
setiop OF the re admsion of Misoan
fto Union, appfossd March, lsz WI ce being
iii ssvsry in the States Territories recognised by
The leg sa.ion Of $780, tcopnorly called The eomprom
ins ae rse inoHt rlenliHr
ssse1y any TERRITORY Scar, 70 exele II Here-
IRON people thereof perrctiy Tree form
and re gulats domestic ussons way,
sutjec ony % the constitution o. tie lned eaiesi Pro
rtasd nothing hefeif contained shall he c1stfled 70
,rs i. ror to tic NJ, III Msteh Issp .iter troteci
lng. esleblslns, prohbltisg, ~ sDolish.ng slavery
This should he satisfactory TO all candid men but ii
any one shah qsrssl attempting 10 nsieat the people,
the will be 10 mpale him before them toe
very words Of sts bt'i
Ii will be obressea bar the right OF tie people 10 regu
laie 10 tseif was al their domestic institutions Is
left wholly untouched excerpt that whatever - done musi
be 10 accordance with TIE coBsftuoftbe suvfen< Ia W
for us ALL and The rigt al properly. under The ronsi
luton seli as legislative scon properly est 10 The
decision of the federal luc1cxy This asoids contest
ed issue which hardly the competency OF Congress
Ia decide and refers 1t 10 he proper tribunal.
i II Is conieDded on one hand. upon he idea oi The
equality OF The SAFES uu6sF the constitution and their
CON mon property in the Territories, thai The eiKens Of
The ssseaoding States may remove 70 tie wnh iher
slaves (sBd that The local legislature canRol gbtlaly
exclude slavery while IN tbe ierrturisl condition; but il
IL concede1 that the people may establish OF lrofib II
y nep they cone exsfcse ibe pouer oil sovereign
State D on other hand sad that slavery, being IN
cerogaiop oi common right, exrt only by force OF
posve law and IL densd that the constitution fur
nsie- this Las Eor The Territories and q il snFrber
claimed thar the local Legislature may establish
clude il any lime after government "a ofssp'zed A.
kah tartes appeal 10 Tie snson and base Their
Reeve Arguments OPPOSITE constructions OF that IN
sirumeni tss hiil sisty refuses 70 make question tor
iuaesi construction Tie sublee Of legislative oonh'ei.
E
sltniiDn ilsef or The very purpose oil deciding ''sll
cases 10 law and equity" arising under it,
Then. neither the parpose effect OF the bill
IA 10 legissie slavery INTO Nebraska and Kansas but lis
effect . 10 sweep away the vesge OF congressional dc
aiion on this b)eci to allow The Tree citizens Of lhs
Union 10 enter The territory with the consttn.
lion and tie bail alone theig hands, and ibe de-
cision - ih~u nights uIder both 20 lbe ~ The
try Who can go before hi- c0esiiiu~nas reio-lng TO
stand on fhe Iisform ~ The Constitution Who can
ina Ike c.se them oi ieashg 10 sbd. The decision II
the courts of the Ualon =
have argued the subject hitherto chiefly upon The
question o plighed fslh 4 and have CONSUMED more
Of my ed time hsn properly belongs 10 that aspect OF
the case dlieeut Efforts have been made
cite The northern nind against tie friends Of rhs bin BY
represenina them the yioaiors 81 public honor Arx-
ZOOS as am Tor "a passase readily admit that no ben
eht could conirr ugoh TIE country would for
deliberate violation q abe puhc iaith bat am for its
passage, noi only because believe that u tnbodes ihe
rue prncPie bot because, alsa sincerely believe that
II carries cut the true Est and inept Of igs vreai
compromise which, 81 my Judgment, covered he whce
satlect Of siaVey
The clock admouishes me- hat must hurry on and
omit views would iks present i time allowed
Bu M Chsrman sPsrt IRON TIE historical srguneni,
ths coniesled fesoe ia The h - rIshl ~ ret, fur
rests th. foundation principle ol Amercsn gogerh-
ment Without entering the wilderness oi e,scussioa ~
regard 20 The relations 81 the federal goyenmen, 10 The
Ternores 40 FoAhcs comma mites, sish 70 offer
thoughts AZ 70 the proper limitations Hpon the power
Of Congress- according the theory of rovern-
ntHt Pelrcm power ~ TIE Territories noxhers
rreFsy granted il the constitution Tia existence, there
lore, and the extent q ~ egttese, must Be denred hy
implication and Implied pnW 10 he exercised with
cauton and sirefnesH ih4u erpfees grants Let
be csueessd tn Pptrgowttp over the Territories e,sfs
~ Csngres aud y no uaater whether j hc Hplira fron