The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-11

Win q view az misunderstanding the courts its inten-
ton 10 DECLARE And, thirdly - the prheple y non
intervention by Congress with respect TO slavery IN the
Territorywth respect 10 the act OF leoo'loieea oy s
BADGER amendment
He intended TO confne his remerks TO these three propo
stons but before doing he should briefly review the
earliest difficulties which had arisen upon the question
OF slavery IN eonneSon with TINS 'goyerhAleht te
occasion upon which there any difference between he
North and the South upon the subject OF slavery was We
they framing the articles of the confederation Inc
difference in respect TO the clause hAng the OASIS
taxation and strange 10 say that time the North insist
ed that the slave should be counted white man. ana
Mr. John Adams Of Massachusetts, maintained II WIN
great yehemence, and with good deal OF force
Mr. proceeded 20 quote the remarks OF Mr. John Adams
and after noticing the history of slavery in this country
dwelt the ancient character Of that institution Greean
history old but slavery preceded the date OF It's COM
mencement lie then took up the three points above emu
meated and defended the provisions Of the bill with great
force and ability.
Mr. GROW said the bill proposed to organize Terrific
res embracing five hundred and sxyfye thousand square
milcstwice large the thirteen original colonies
four hundred and twenty-five million of land being
than oneour of all the public lands owned by
government The provisions of the bill those usually
inserted in bills for the organization of territorial govern
mens with the exception Of the 18th section, which de-
cared the Missouri Compromise imperative The oppos
ton this bill confined wholly this section, and
the objections the Senate bill We're the same with the adj
dtona objection based the clause known the Clay
ton amendment He asked why should that difference be
made between the admission OF these and that OF other Ter
rtories? How could it be reconced with the principles
Of nonnteryenton and popular sovereignty which II
protested to be based2
He understood popular sovereignty to be the right of
people select the who govern them But how
with these Tcrrtorcs2 They proposed to give the
people power choose those who should make their
laws, but TO send them executive and judicial officers with
power any laws which their representatives might
pass Was that popular sovereignty lie contended how
ever that this government possessed the right to control
Territories otherwise band OF hundred banditu might
go into those Territories form government and egalze
murder, theft and all manner of crime
lie hoped the bill would not pass because he believed
that if it did it would such reaction as to secure
large majority at the next election in opposition to the
present administration
Mr. PERKINS, of New York said bill was first brought
into the Senate and he believed the House proposing
to organize but one Territory and the author OF the bill
declared that he not prepared to repeal the Missouri
Compromise A week or two passed over, and from
vction he knew not how the author OF the bill
the conclusion repeal the Missouri Compromise and
pronounced it imperative and void He believed that the
intention of the author Of this BILL in dividing the terri
tory into two in order to have in the southern portion
judicial officers who would interpret the universal
law Of this country to be such TO make it necessary for
colored man. in order to be entitled to his freedom to
show his certificate that effect In effect it not in
tended that the people should choose their rulers but that
the judges should rule them.
TWAS said that this matter of selfgoyernment-tha
this bill promote popular sovereignty and yet il
contained clauses enacng almost every species of tyranny
condemned in the Declaration of Independence.
He declared himself to be no aboltonst contended
that the negro of inferior race and believed that
free negroes nuisance He acknowledged that the
state OF slavery favorable to the increase of that race
and though he had objection to gentlemen holding
slaves in Central America he protested against their bring
ing the colorad into that portion Of the country which
had been dedicated to freedom The negro was called
chattel' when his master desired to take him to free
territory but person when arranging the representa-
ton of the country.
Mr. r. continued at length to oppose in a humorous
manner, the provisions of the bill, and yielded to
Mr. MfLLSON, who made few remarks in reply TO his
colleague, [Alr. BAyLy, of Virginia.
Mr. ELLIOT of Massachusetts, the repeal Of the
Missouri Compromise. He defended his State from certain
mputatons which had been thrown justifng its OPP
position to the measure when pro-
posed and said he regretted that had not done unan
4 1ously He would, in case vote for admitting State
into the Union with the institution Of slavery lie hated
slavery because believed wrong but he should
oppose good naturedly and he would say that the
gentlemen from the South who upheld slavery did not love
freedom
that the Of 1850 repealed the Sth section Of the Mis-
souri, OF 1920 and it astonishing TO him that any
person could believe that did He opposed the
details of the bill because they Inconsistent but he
approved of the purpose of the BILL and should sup
port it because with the Badger amendment it would
peal the Missouri Compromise and remove existing rrsrc-
tons He not in favor Of the people of Territory
legislang the subject of slavery until admitted into
the Union State but should waive his objections to
the BILL and support It's passage believing it to be condu-
Give to the welfare Of the country.
MIR ELLIOT of Kentucky opposed the restrictions of the
Missouri Of 1920 and declared that the territory of the
United States not the property oihe North Of the
South of the East of the West but of the whole people
Of the country He called upon the representatives of the
North recognise the rights of the constitution which
made no limitation to what part Of the Union citizen
should take his own property
Mr. DOWDElL opposed the Missouri restriction.
: Mr. CARPENTER spoke against the bill
Mr. TWEED favored the bill
Mr. FARLEY declared himself friend of the Compro-
mise act OF 1850.
Mr. HARRISON contcnded that there was an utter want
of necessity for this bill
1 Mr. C0LQUITT obtained the floor.
4 Mr. CAMPBELL said he understood the Chairman had
been making arrangements cxactng conditions OBJ
tanning the floor that only part Of the hour which the
allowed 10 each member should be occupied.
The CHAIRMAN said he had required such pledges.
Mr. HUNT. protest against this breach Of parliament
- iII ,f ISSGuilAN bood an, - ,,,o r. cr,
Mr. CotouIrTl would he allowed TO 90 on with his re-
marks.
i Mr. HUNT II appears that it is a question Of
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Louisiana
rises question of order the Chair willing hear
him.
Mr.. HUNT Well, sir, do rise to question of order
II is that the gentleman who has just taken his seat and
says he has had but fifteen minutes has right to proceed
for honr under the rule
YoICr Does he claim it2
Mr.. HUNT take occasion say hope the gentleman
regards the rights of others and that the House will call
upon him to his right in order that he may protect its
4 own rights against any trickery.
4 ICrics of "Drdcrn order. y s4-ss
Mr HARRISON said he had obtained the floor by the
courtesy Of the Chairman who assured me he could not m
1 ford me the whole OF the time
j Mr.. HUNT indignantly The Chair could not award
him his proper time
4 Mr.HARRISON. IL wasan act of courtesy allowed from
the Chair He said he might have il in his power TO give
me fifteen twenty minutes at the time having OBJ
tanned the floor had right to proceed the hour il /
chose
/ The CHAIRMAN explained that the gentleman from