Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-16

on the subject Of domestic slavery as they
might believe most 20 their interest Ut was
return 10 the principle Of non-interyention
which had marked the earlier history OF the
government. 1t was q Reputation of the geo
graphical expedient upon which the storms Of
abolition had driven the country in 1920. II
was an abnegation by Congress of its right TO
prescribe the internal and domestic policy Of
Territory. Ii was the broad, clear, and dis
tinct recognition Of the right Of the people to
judge and determine for themselves what instr
tutions were best calculated to promote their
own happiness and prosperity; and, sir, was
this not such result as might have been ex-
pected from the American people in the mid
die of the nineteenth century, when guided to
their conclusions by the virtuous and enlight-
ened statesman who led at that eventful crisis
of their country's history?
Sir, am well aware that there is a techni
cal plausibility in the argument that the law
OF 1850 applies only to the Territories Of Utah
and New Mexico, and does not, by its terms,
include Nebraska. But is this not too narrow
and sectional view of the results Of that
memorable contest? Did the south expect to
derive, practically, any benefit from her support
of this principle in 1850? Was it not alone
for the principle Of constitutional law estab-
lished by that act that she so zealously strug-
gled Does not that principle apply with
equal force to Nebraska as to New Mexico
Is it not the same government acting over
both? Does any man suppose that this prob
lem OF territorial selfgovernment, solved by
the terrible agitations Of 1850, ratified with un-
precedented unanimity by the American peo-
pie in 1852, proclaimed from the eastern por-
tico of the Capitol amidst the shouts of exult-
ing freemen on the 4th of March, 1853, and
clothed with practical power in the avowed
sentiments of every department of this govern
ment, was designed to be restricted to the mere
occasion which revealed it to the public mind
that it was to have no force or application be-
yond the Territories then being organized +?
Was this the sentiment of the country? Was
this the verdict Of the people? Was this Tie
opinion of the lamented and illustrious Clay !?
Is it the opinion of Cass, Douglas, and those
other eminent public men who acted in every
step of the development of that policy, and SO
materially aided in bringing it to its glorious
results? Principles very plain in themselves,
are sometimes very slow and difficult of appli.
cation. For years they often lie buried be.
meath the rubbish Of personal interests or Of
of sectional prejudices. 1t often requires some
stirring incident, some tumult of the popular
mind, some mighty collision Of human pas
sions to reveal them to the world, or to give to
them their just application but when once
recognised and acted upon in the affairs OF
government, they stand thenceforth recorded
upon the page of human progress, and enter
permanently into the thoughts and opinions Of
men. Its antagonistic error sinks before it as
mist before the rising sun.
The right freely to discuss the conduct and
motives OF public agents would seem to be o
very plain and unquestonable right. And yet
it required thereyolution of 1900 to establish it
firmly in the practice of this government. The
right of sovereign State to be admitted into
this Union upon an equal footing with all the
other States, has become received and adj
mitted axiom of our system. And yet it re-
CURED the agitations Of 1920 to place it beyond
dispute. So the right of the people of Ter
ritory to frame for themselves q policy best
adapted to their circumstances and condition
would seem to be very plain proposition, and
yet it required the tumult and excitement Of
years before it became finally recognised in
1850. Sir, such principles, resting as they do
upon the foundations upon which our own lib
critics and rights of selfgovernment are found.
ed, once brought into action, take no stepback-
wards. As soon, sir, would expect to see
this glorious empire Of confederated States re.
turn TO its colonial dependence upon Great
Britain, as to see the repudated principle Of
congressional intervention and dictation again
revived to disturb the peace and harmony OF
this people. 1t has had its day. 1t has per-
formed Its function of evil an era of light and
progress has risen upon the country, and it has
sunk amongst the exploded follies and delu-
sions of the past.
l will now proceed very briefly to consider
the bill which has been sent to US from the
Senate.
Sir, objections have been urged against this
bill with much zeal and ability by gentlemen
both from the north and from the south-by
representatives from slaveholding and non-slaye-
holding States very striking fact to show that
there is nothing very sectional in the measure,
and that its aims and purposes, at least, are
catholic and national, if they be not as wise and
expedient as we claim them to be. By several
gentlemen from the north it has been de-
nounced as bill to extend slavery into Ne.
braska; by others from the south, it has been
assailed as bill to exclude slavery from that
Territory. 1t is quite certain that both these
conclusions cannot be right; and, as is not I'M
common in cases Of such wide disagreement,
the truth will be found to lie between these ex-
IRENE opinions. The bill, sir, neither estab-
fishes nor excludes slavery from that Territory,
but leaves it an open question, to be deter
mined by those who are to be affected by what
ever of good or evil there is in the institution.
| have already noticed the most prominent
objections to this measure which have been
pressed from the north; l will now examine
such as have been urged from the south. The
high source from which they emanate, and the
wide circulation given to their opinions, make
some reply proper.
The able and acute gentleman from the
State of Maryland, Mr.. FRANKLIN,] following
the train Of thought suggested by my distin-
guished colleague, Mr.. MILsoN, but pushing
his conclusions far beyond those of the latter
gentleman, contends that while the fourteenth
section of the bill repeats the prohibition con-
tanned in the actof the 9th of March, 1920, and
SO far seeks to accomplish result which he
conceded to be sound, yet that it falls far short
of the full measure Of justice, inasmuch as it
expressly declines to revise and re-establish
the status and condition Of slavery which ex-