Loudon free press. (Loudon, Tenn.) 1852-1855, 1854-04-11
WASHINGTON Cry. March 0e 1874


addressed, with the request that it be inserted
in this paper.
WASHINGTON CITY, March 26, 1854.
Ny DEAR SIR: I have received vonr DO.
lite favor of the 22nd INST, making inquiry as
to the fate of the Nebraska and Kansas bill;
and in reply have to say that have no idea
it can pass the House in its present form
Your view is the correct one; it is measure
which emenates from presidential asprant.
who makes the public interest and the peace
of the country, secondary to his ambitious
views, Having been defeated at the last Dem
ocratic National Convention for the nomina.
ton, in moment of calm and public repose,
he now plots feloniousy against the peace of
the country, and raised hurricane of aboli.
ton excitement to ride into the presidency in
virture of his northern locality and Wimot
proviso antecedent, we'll moving that this bill
if passed with all its verbiage, tautology cir
cumlocution, though presenting a southern face
will be construed BY all attitudes to be the
bane of the south. The south bit at It with
all the avdity of a trout, without scanning II
further than to see that It virtually repealed tn,
Missouri restriction of 1920. The administra.
ton, which had become ab0li:iOnised bv taking
to its bosom the free-solers and abolitionists
of the north and rewarding them with the best
aud most lucrative Offices in the government,
to the exclusion of good and national men who
had stood by the compromise ami made it ac-
ceptable to the people, seized upon this scheme
as cheap means of atoning TO the south and
thus nationalizing itself With its patronage
it brings some stength to the measure although
it is weak and fragil. Douglas brings those
to its support that look beyond his election to
the spols; and this gives the measure its prin-
cipal strength among the Democratic members.
But the bill is fast growing odious here, and
must become more so when its provisions are
known and understood. It sets ont by the
popular idea of non-intervention by Congress
in the affairs of the people of territory, and
it then iatergenes and repeats the act Of 1920
which they alledge is unconstitutional because
it violates the guarantee in The treaty of 1909
with France, protecting slavery in the Lonisi
ana territory, of which Nebraska is part
said treaty being the supreme law of the land
under our constitution. 1t next confers the
sovereign power of legislation upon all sub
jects connected with their domestic institutions
upon their local Legislature. which is the first
instance of the kind on record. Slavery is
domestic institution. Who is there to exer-
else this sovereign power?
Our non-intercourse laws soemnly forbid a
citizen from crossing the line; we have mount
ed dragons there to enforce this law which
we are pledged in our treaties with various
Indian tribes to carry out, but poor Indians
they have but few friends; Well this sover
eighty is lodged not in citizens then, for there
are none but the vagrant, struggling wavfarer
who may chance TO be there, many of whom
are refuged from the states who have fed from,
justice, and these are the repository of this
high sovereignty, which even statesmen should
exercise with distrust. But now these non
interventionists, having depudiated the solemn
cOvenent of our tarthers, by congressional in
tervention, then comes the Badger amend
ment, drawn up by free soiler, which wss
introduced in and carried though the Senate
in great haste to get the votes of the free sellers
and abolitoniSts, and here let me say, Seward
and every abolitionist in the Senate, voted for
it, which provides that nothing contained in
the Nebraska bill, shall be so constructed as
to put in force any law that existed prior to the
act of 1920. If the act of 1920 was unconsti-
tutional, the civil law maintaining slavery has
been there deime all the time until this non
Intervention legislates it out as it most clearly
does; not only does it repeal the civil lazy but
abrogates the treaty, which in the otherBreath
they say, rendered the act Of 1920 JExconstitu-
tionaI. If the Congress Of lS29yconld not,
under the constitution, suspend <he clause in
the treaty of 1893 protecting pSsoos, property
gether as this bin most clearly does, upon any
fair legal construction. n Congress thus has
the power to repeal slavery out of territory
where it is fixed bylaw, is it polite for the
south, in minority and at the >mersyof the
north, to give Rprecedent for the Eercise of
such power fof the mere prvilegZSf removing
what they gall cloud, in the lyem of the act of
1920, t1allow southern sI<e holders to do
what every body agrees Rey can not, do if
they%ould, and which Wy would not do if they
could, take slaves 10 the freezing desert of
-NCDioS DpI FhCo say w 10 vi IHG SOutIlI
we have established courts to adjudicate your
rights under the constitution, and you need
not fear that these squatter sovereign lords
and legislators if they meet, as they will the
day after the bill passes-and exclude south
ern men from moving in with their slaves
Go to the courts, they say and assert your
constitutional rights; but 10! when you look to
the courts constituted bv the bill, they have
only common law jurisdiction, and slavery can
not exist at common law; and so you see what
the south is to get for her breach of faith: All
these fatal precedent and the agitation that
will ensue will drive every sound national man
from the nor h, out of Congress-then the COM
promise Of 1920 will be repealed, or suspended,
so far as the south is interested, and the peace
of the country will be destroyed. Having re-
pealed the French laws and the treaty of 1854,
the next step will be to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia, the navy and dock yards
and all the government works. Foreseeing
these consequences, | have, from the first, been
against the bil!-with these convictions, |
would be rcereant if | did not firmly and reSo-
lutely opposed it.