New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-12-25
WHAT is THE QUESTION,


men should volunteer such assertions as the fol-
lowing, which we find editorial in The Express:
"AcquiesceLce now in the Nebraska bill is the
theoretical position Of al parties. Toe AooiuonisA
with o 'resora'ion OF the Missouri Compromise, be
cause they hope TO establish " Freedom South oil
$50 3O. The 18th section peop'e wish for no ie5tora
ton because they wiet for further use ess agitation
iu Kansas thsll be bond or free as ley will -snd
hus the settlement of the wbos question Is LETT 10
those there low by a parties
To this string of assumptions we respond that
|. 1t is not true that "acquiescence in IT, Ne
"brsska bill is now the theoretical position of al
"psrties" On the contrary proposition look
ing to the repeal Of 30 much of IL as relates TO
Slavery has already been made in the House, aud,
if it were now on its passage. would receive the
votes of at least One Hundred aud Five, aud prob
ably of majority, of that body
2. The Missouri Compromise opposed no posi-
tive obstacle to the establishment of Freedom
south of go 3V." 1t provided that all Territory
north of that lice should be Free, while that south
of it should be Free or Slave as its people should
determine. In ether words the Territory north
of that line was expressly shielded from Slavery,
while that south was left just where it now is.
BY the abrogation of the Missouri Compact
Freedom lost it's guaranty for all north of the line
and gained nothing at the south
"The principle of the Nebraska bill " is not
"that the People in Kansas be bond or free as
they will" For, in the first place, that portion of
the People in Kansas whose freedom or slavery
is in question are allowed no voice in deciding the
the point-th are to be bond or free not as
they will, but as others will. The whole matter
is expressly referred to the decision of the free
white persons" who are not in any case to be
slaves, but only (if they choose enslavers.
But again:
The settlement of this question of Slavery or
Free Labor in Kansas is not "left by all parties
even to the free whites of Kansas; on the con
trary, III representatives of the Slave States deny
the right of the People of Kansas, while she re-
mains a Territory to exclude Slavery from her
domain, and the Northern Dougiasites are no,o
going TO this doctrine.
Here is the proof, quoted from the debate in the
House to which we listened on Friday last, and
fairly reported in The Union Of Sunday. The de-
baters are Mr. Cox of Ky. Twelfth section K. NJ
ard Mr.. j. CLANCY JONES of Pa, lesding North
e1n Democrat:
Mr. Cox-Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
believe that Congress hiss 10 power to confer upon The
people OF Territory the power to establish Slavery
Mr.. JOsEs-If the gen leman will allow me, will
explain position fully. will ans 1er his question.
The question pat to me tue other day by the gentle
man from Ohio Mr.. Giddinss) was: "Dosou believe
"Congress possesses pc wer TO declare freedom Kan
Z" sas Territory
MIR. G1DDISGs-I said restore Freedom
Mr. JoSEs-Vey well; "restors Freedom" an-
ssered ibis question then; but will tie the gentle
man again exactly what | do believe. believe the
sbole power of this Government over Territory,
vhe i renal in its territorial CONDITION. grows out
of the proprietary right of the Govern ment as landed
proprietor under the Constitution; and believe that
CON- IS has the power TO cooer upos the people Of
Territory the right 10 legisate upon the subject Of
Slavery when they are forming theie organic Law pre-
psratory 10 admission into the Union as sover.
tipp State but prior to that time, they hare no right
eittr TO estqbiish abolish SlaUpy. Congress can
lot col fer j., for want OF power.
Mr. Cox-I u derstsnd the gentleman perfectly, so
fer as that is concerned Now let me ask the gentle
man aDO her question.
MIR JoSEs-OIe word more, if my honorable friend
from Kennedy will GLOW me bsl5ve the General
Government has no power to confer upon the people
OF Territory jurisdiction upon the subject of Slavery
a. 10 is esta0shnent or abolition unaer the Constiiu
toD EXCEPT TO he exercised in one rag, aud that way
il az have said, through their organic lar, rkea
fhev come and ask admission INTO me OHioa. Con-
er,ss bas poy or over tie subject, except land
ed ropiietor and in virtue Of thst power they have
no tight 10 make general regulations touching the ex
isence Of Slavery TIA. nv posi- Ion on The sloac
aud boie Gm LOW un0ers'oCd'
Mr.. Cox-I understand the ger 1amsn perfectly.
Ard Low viii tie gel tlemsn ppcon NE for a'siDg hin
snotl er question desire TO know whether the gen.
ten al BELIEVES ina. the laws established by the Leg
isstsIe OF the Territory of kansas are, under the
Constitution Of the United Staes, nu ana void
Nj JoNEs-Celtainly, l will answer the question,
ard Tin what have already said must make my
opinion evldtn, upon that ques ION: l have said
ALREADY IL at liz my opinion the CONSTITUTION h1us ths
Iowtr O. Congress 10 the extent CT prohibiting either
ON establishing or abolisbipg Slavery In tn Ter
tito,ies, Admitting that view to ne correct sup
pCse follows as a matter OF coarse lha. the COnsua
ton tfthe United States co n upon he people OF the
1,riioiy no right 10 6isposess any man Of his prop
erin rffber II be slave or ony other property; snd
iLere(ofe the Legislative COarch Of a Territory,
ihGrgh they nay pass laws IesnaoI the oi.Po a. aid
prots elton Of property have no rent 30 10 enact or
dnnistfr laws ne either to estab sh or abolish the
,ieIt 10 hold that property whether slave or not.
The Constitution rcogLiZes slaves az property and
fCveIeisn State alone can Givest L.
Mr. Cox-I understand the gentleman, then, es
saying that he laws o. Kansas so lar as the establish
inserts as a Statesman and lawyer are void So far
as merely making rules Al regulations for tae govern
ent Of tina. property is concerned, they have the
right to make laws but not TO establish the right OF
man. however 10 say that by the Constitution Of the
United Stsiee Congress having no power over the
subject of 6efbpg what is and what is not proper if
,i.vebolfer GOES To the Teniory Of Kansas with his
he sill holds them property AID may claim
The rifh cfprOtect,O. IN t.af Hres-rty.
Mr.. JoSEs- Undopbted!y. Ine Government recos.
Mics ss prorerty what fuds there such recognized
under the Constitution, having no power to say
whether il is or is not property think my friend f,om
Kentucky az .ees with me there
MIR. COx-Csrtainly do. 80
Mr.. Joyys-Thfn be is sound thus far. WAS ap.
Yesterday that he was not perfectly sound
upon tina. question.
We ask The Express to copy this extract from
the debate Of Friday, as reported in the National
Democratic organ Of Sunday, and tell US what it