The daily union., 1854-02-28

subscribers with sa5 enelosed WEEKLY
subscribers with $40 enclosed copy Of s
same edition they furnish subscribers 1rafia
seems TO not Bot sir the power of the cestai
gus ru, the power Of the people in these Territories,
when o. where did yon ever learn that the sssiai t'
Ill he had attained his majority is always subject TO
the control Of The trustee paIicula5y when there y
laons for its government The eesui que Gust has no
power over the fund the trustee alone c5alrols IL
The senator further sad IN regard to me: g
y Amember q the other House, whose zeal certainly
voas opinions thar he had egosn enough 10 believe bis
but followed he Example Of 10 eoars in %hsh was The
regular aud every day practice % oe her own decisions
declared Also quite eathdra thai no should be able
The senator did say what said should be able
to show, but remember it, twas that this government
had unlimited power over the Territories. "
80 these articles Of lie ordnauce were forever
binding unless altered by mutual consent and that
In Indiana had been silly enough % doubt the va
hdiiy oi tho ordinance #s
The senator took it very hard because ntimated that
senator or man IN Michigan--not % lniiana.-had
been SILLY enough 10 suppose that the six articles OF
Ii repeat that entitled rfeh or respect in In
diana entertained doubt upon that subject. shall
show the SENATOR IN answerto hequesons put me, that
there is no such power The senator continues: W aN
is not the validity the ordinance we re now seek
perpetual obligation" go tEgsa -a sa3aaR
Isay it isperpetua in it's obligation, uaess by mutual
consent do not say il is inyiolable. Tor both parties
may consent 10 its repeal. .45ar a @1
"The speaker confounds propositions entirely differ
| ent in their nature" @f&A A*&
I think | have not. but l think he has, Ihave no,
said that the ordinance nvioabe aud repealable,
but have said that il was contract that could only
DC superseded by the two goveraasnts-Stae and ma
part Of senator OF his high standing, his eradon, hs
political positionfor whose elevation had long, and
largely, and loudly abored Notwithstanding in the
opft MN
dvidual in private ife upon the banks Of the Wabash,
and "not Of the Neva," say 70 him that have come
here to-day to answer his questions He proceeds
/" Let ask him il any one in Indiana ever doubted
yenon and 10 Introduce slavery there, IL they pleased
code Napoleon. the Louisiana code, the
de Par which time was the law oL part Of lnd-
ana change tue OF bait for oifenees or find
better remedy for the preservation of personal liberty than
the writ Of habea ?all which declared by the
ordinance to DO forever aaaerable, but by common con-
policy, which people sovereign enough 10 touch
without the consent OF Cong ress" fsf 2 e
Yes sir can say 10 The senator that no man in ndi-
ana ever believed that such thing could be done, and
shall show thai only bound by the terms OF
the settlement not to introduce slavery there but we were
bound in sovereign capacity, before admit
ted into this Union, 10 adopt constitution perpeuatng
and embaming forever the ordinance OF 1857 But the
senator proceeds
81 had supposed, till now that the States adj
mted into the Union AN equa! footing with the original
States, In all respects Whatever" /" s'
will stop here and turn caechist, and make the sena-
tor from Michigan my catechumen; and wish 70 know
how and where and by what learning and by what au
thony that senator thought that the new States had TO
be admitted upon equal footing with the original
States How came he TO entertain any such thought or
idea2 Not from the constitution, which he rever-
ences and woFships and which he so ably Tin his own
esma,on) exponnds Not there but IRON the ordinance
OF 1884, There the Grst pscc ard that the first time.
where il was stipulated that the new States should
come IN equal footing with the original States There,
in that very instrument which he affirmed instance
in he is
repeal and abrogae the ordinance TO thing,
why not to anotheri If you are bound 10 admit
States equal loong with the original States under
that ordnance must you mol sustain ,he remainder OF he
ordinance on The same gound' All mast stand or fall
ogeher o. The s29 @ s h 10 DC iound IN the
States equal iooung with the original States The
only provision OF the constitution upon The subject s
that Congress shall have power 10 admit States
The provision that they should come in on an equal
footing with the original States is found in the ord
nance OF l7s7 granyou that The ordinance Is obga
tory and binding 10 this respect bat ii was then, is
now, and trust will ever be for | satisfied that
this point there will be no such thing as mutual con-
sent 10, % no STATE "a @ coming ni9 os unoa I hs s wiling
that he, who free country. under free government
seeks rights and privilege Than is common TO all
his fellow citizens, lhie and robber and he who
lamey submits to be shorn OF hs equality is coward
and craven. | have no fear tGat any State will
submit 10 be shorn Of lis political equality when coming
But what did the provision mean that the new States
should come in upon equal iooting with the original
Staesl DID that they should nave Toe same
political internal policy 6IMply mean, that when ad-
mted they should have the political power, repre-
sentaion, and influence the other States bad in this
government that they should be admitted into the
Union upon the fooling, with the same political
powers, rights, and duties which the other states had
with reference 10 this government, and IN this govern
ment constituent parts OF H. and not as States al home
wish, however 10 read the residue OF the senator's re-
marks on this point:
this doctrine of the perpetual obligation Of this
ord correct the States and the old States
cupy very different POSITIONS indeed and the powers Of
the latter much greater han those o the former As
citizen Of the Northwest Iobect ero 70 this humiia-
ting difference and doubt II the gentleman VIII IND many
converts TO his opinion in his own state"
Now # the senator objects to this, he objects in vain
II Tins is political inequality lei me tell him that nelth-
er his own State OF Michigan, nor any new state IN
which public lands e except Texas, has been, or ever
will be- admitted on an equal footing with The original
States Ii there ia any thing more than another
which pertains to sovereignty II is the disposition OF the
soil within The bounds limits oil sovereignty. Where
4 your sovereignty over your soil Have you any in
Michigan' Have you any in indiana-in 0nio-or in
any other of the States formed out OF the Northwest
Tenioryl They ough, to have had their sove.. be,,
over their lands, but they have got il a~nauoAP n
fore according to the Of the they out al
been admitted on equal footing with the o. bS ~
States Al
Where, also. is the navigation OF your rivers L5oK
at the Ohio look at the Wabash look atthe 81 Mary's;
look at the Illinois. and the Mississippi, wnch By that
ordinance declared be Pcpeualy preserved for
public highways Has that ordinance ever been set aside
DO not your courts now uniformly hold that the ord-
u II I,lxt.~ ,s shafr IN