Washington sentinel., 1854-03-09
SPEECH or HON. J. R. THOMSON.
In the Senate Of the United Sta,es Tuesday,
Fsbyuary 28 1854.
or NEW JERSEY,

Mr.. President, had not intended to address
the Senate upon the question now under con-
sideraiion, and would not have departed from
that intention, had not the presentation of re-
monstrances emanating from New Jersey, and
the range the debate has taken, seemed to re-
auire from me some expression OF the opinions
entertain, and the reasons for the vote shall
give in favor of the bill now upon your table.
Mr.. President, no northern State acted with
more promptness, decision. and boldness than
New Jersey, in behalf Of the compromise mea
sures of 1880 The democratic party of that
State, at the elections of l850-5l, and 80, in
scribed those measures upon their banners.
They were approved by the democracy of New
Jersey, while their opponents, in the great con.
test Of 1850, declined to approve them, and
commended the course Of those members OF
Congress who opposed their adoption. The
issue was thus distinctly made in New Jersey
between the two parties need not tell you.
sir, that the democratic party regained their
ascendency in the State. That am here, now
addressing you, ascribe to their triumph on
that issue.
Sir, New Jersey has never been prone to any
subserviency to southern or to any other sec
tioaal principles. She stands by her o,on prin.
ciples and they are the principles of the Con-
stitution, and these admonish her that her true
adherence to the strict letter of that Constitu.
ton. 1t was for this reason that the democ-
racy of New Jersey espoused so warmly the
compromise measures. They saw in them
protection to the reserved rights of the States
and the people--a limitation upon the inter
meddling Intervention Of Congress-and a
boundary affixed to that vexatious agitation Of
a sectional question, at once dangerous and
demoralizing; because oil sectional strife is
dangerous and demoralizing in republic, since
it makes the triumph of section paramount to
the triumph of principle.
Such being the principles and views Of the
State which in part represent, should be
derelict to my duty should not avail myself
Of the first occasion, very briefly, to express
them in this chamber, and to sustain them bv
my vote. The principle of this bill is not only
in accordance with those measures, and there
fore in accordance with the sentiments of my
constituents, but independently of all such con-
cord, it is, in my Judgment, eminently just in
itself The principle Of this bill is the princi-
pie Of selfgovernment, principle which alone
prompted the Declaration of Independence
Sir, it was the seminal principal of the Consti,
tuition and the government 1t lies at the
foundation of all our political institutions. 1t
is the inalienable birthright Of every American
freeman. The recognition Of this principle has
been universal in our country, with the single
exception Of the anomaly Of debating to the
people of the Territories lin some instances)
their organic laws. instead of leaving them, like
the rest Of the people, TO the exercise of their
own volition. At this moment the country
resounds with clamor from a political party,
whose policy is to keep alive agitation, because
it is proposed that Congress should abjure the
exercise Of irresponsible power. and leave the
people of the Territories established by this
bill to the enjoyment Of their rights of self.
government.
By what process of reasoning, ! would in
quire, do we arrive at the conclusion that the
citizens of the States, when they enter one of
your Territories, become divested of the right
of selfgovernment By virtue of what author.
ity do you thus disfranchise and strip Of the
prerogatives of freeman the hardy and adven.
turous pioneer who goes forth to extend The
empire of the republic? Show me the clause
of the Constitution which authorizes such des-
potic exercise Of power. Show me the clause
Of the Constitution which authorizes you to
discriminate between the Territories Of Utah
and New Mexico and those to be created by
this BILL
Why should restrictions be imposed on Ne
braska and Kansas, to which Utah and New
Mexico are not subjected? Is there any con-
fict between the principle and provisions of
the bill establishing the Territories of Utah and
New Mexico and the present bill? 1have not
been able to discover any. The principles of
selfgovernment. and the non-intervention Of
Congress in their domestic concerns, are as
serted alike in both.
Well, then, if it does not conflict with the
provisions of the Constitution, nor with the
bills establishing the Territories Of Utah and
hot of of laY;o
ton does it conflict? Why, sir, it conflicts
with the 9Th section Of the act of 1920, com.
monty but enormously called the Missouri COM
promise-and this it proposes to repeal, as
"being inconsistent with the principle of non
intervention by Congress with slavery in the
States and Territories, as recognized by the
legislation of 1850, commonly called the COM
promise measures"-it being the true intent
and meaning Of the act of repeal not to legis-
late slavery into any Territory or State, or to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution of he United States" !"
BY the Missouri act of 1920, rights and priv
ileges were conferred on one portion of the peo-
ple of the United States which were denied to
another portion. This bill, Mr.. President, it
will be perceived, makes no such invidious dis
Sl0ctlOn. Dut Ill CltlZcHS VI luc Sulttu Ctdtes
are entitled, under its provisions, tothe same and
equal rights. Sir, the people of the United
States will never submit to any inequality in
the enjoyment of political rights, nor can you
constitutionally create any such inequality.
The second section of the fourth article of
tha Constitution provides that "the citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all privileges
andimmunities Of citizens of the several States
But Mr.. President, does the act Of 1920, which
permits the introduction into Territory of the
United States Of every species Of property which
New England man may possess in New Eng
land, and denies that right to Virginian with
regard to his property in Virginia; does, ask,
tlat act conform with that clause in the Con-
stitution which have just cited? Sir, it Gre
ates the exact inequality the Constitution pro-
hibits. The New Englander enjoys right and
immunity with respect to the removal, use, and
disposal Of his property which Virginian does
.os .n;ov The Constitution eavs a portbarn