Eastern times., 1855-10-11
eastern Times,
BATH, OCTOBER II, 1902.
a.u,,ar sovereignty.

.,.r ,opular sovereignty. LII Contended
49,, 49, :, means the ssextension of slavery" No
such thing. The fact is, that popular SOW
ereiguty is the grand safeguard of freedom.
and the grand opponent of slavery 1t has
banished slavery from Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn
sylvania. Ohio, Indiana. Illinois, Michigan,
Wisconsin, and lowa,-is fast banishing it
from Delaware.-and will ultimately do the
same for Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and
other slaveholding states.
So alfirms the N. Y. Jouanal of Commerce,
and to continue the argument forcibly asks;
Why is Virginia 10 day slave-holding
community Because the principles of the
Kansas-Nebraska law was not permitted to
operate there, but was overthrown and tram
Piled under foot by the British government.
Ii is matter of historical record, and will
not be denied by anv intelligent man, that
slaves were forced upon Virginia against her
earnest by the parent govern
meht and thus slave holding interest was
eventually created which over-matched the
anti-slavery feeling, and the result is, what we
now witness. The famous 7'tOrdinance of
l7S7'' is continually in the mouth of anti
slavery men, as an infallable antidote against
''the extension of slavery" and they mourn
and lament that the same prohibition cannot be
applied by Congress to all the national terri
tories not vet organized into states. Look
now at the practical effect of that ordinance,
compared with the principle of the Nebraska
law. Under the ordinance of 1877, slavery
tros introduced into Indiana and Illinois, and
continued 10 increase there, until by the cree
tion of those territories into states, the princi
ple of the Nebraska law was embodied in
their constitution, after which 1t gradually
abated, and is now extinct.
To be more particular In 1870, three years
after the passage of the ordinance of 1887,
there were no slaves in Indiana, then compris-
ing what is now Indiana and Illinois. In
1900, the number was 1876. In 1909, Illinois
was set off into separate territory. In 1910,
the slaves in Indiana, thus curtailed had In
creased to 1877 while in Illinois the number
was 1863. Indiana was erected into State in
1916, and Illinois in 1918. BY that change,
popular sovereignty took the place of the ordi-
nance of 1887. What was the consequence
Why, this that the number of slaves in In
diana, four years after the change, 10 wit, in
1920 was reduced 10 l20-in 1880 to B. and in
l850to0. And this also: that the number of
slaves in Illinois, which in 1920, 1.-TWO years
after the change,) was 917, was in 1880 re-
duced TO 757, in 1910 to 33I, and in 1850 to o.
Such is the operation of popular sovereignty
upon the system of slavery, contrasted with
the prohibitory ordinance of 1897. Popular
sovereignty is the leading principle of the Ne
braska law,-the ordinance of 1877 is the
same as the WiImot Proyiso. Which do you
prefer, reader!
What made California a free state1 The
principle of the Nebraska law, alias, popular
sovereignty. Nothing else. Congress- had
no hand in the business. California formed a
state constitutions such as her people approved,
and it prohibited savery.s
A great fuss was made by the ''friends of
freedom as they called themselves, because
Utah and New Mexico, on being organized
into territories in 1850, were authorized TO
have slavery, or not, as they pleased. But
what harm has it done How many slaves
are there in either territory! or in both OF
them together! Probably not so; and these
will be set free long time sooner than If they
had remained in the states from which they
came.
A still greater uproar was made because
Kansas and Nebraska were erected into terri
tories on the same basis as Utah and Mexico.
Barrels of sermons, we have no doubt, have
been preached against the measure, and its
mover and supporters have been denounced,
up hill and down. But what harm has it
donel Does anybody nolC believe that either
of those territories are TO become slave-holding
states Very few, certainly and the num-
ber is fast diminishing. The only danger Of
such result, has been occasioned by the abo-
lition emigrant societies which, by putting
forth ''great, swelling words of vanity" START
ed up a counter movement in Missouri, of
violent and disgracefu character, whereas, if
they had been content to trust the pc pie, and
the free working of the Nabraska law, the
Missourans, we have no doubt, would have
done so too. However, sail is well that ends
well.'' We may therefore sum up the
achievements of popular sovereignty, as en-
bodied in the Nebraska law, within the last
six years, in the following manner =