The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-04-03
THE NATIONAL ERA: WASHINGTON D. G., APRIL g. 1856.

no power to exclude it.
The Kansas-Nebraska act, having, as has been
shown, no fixed and certain principle, but subject
to as many different vercons as there are sections
in the Union, and upon which opposite construc-
tons may be put with equal plsusibility, to suit
the peculiar views of each locality, is the law
which is so much extolled in this report, which,
however, omits to explain the meaning of the
principle it so much eulogizes and about which
so much controversy has arisen; but its author,
Mr.. DOUGLAS in a speech delivered in this
body in 1850, showed the fallacy of the positions
now assumed by the South, and that to prohibit
Slavery IN Territory was no violation of South
ern rights He then said:
"What share had the South in the Territories
or the North? or any other geographical diyis-
ion unknown to the Constitution? | answer,
none; none at all. The Territories belong to
the United States as one people, one nation, and
are to be disposed of for the common benefit on
all, according to the principles of the COnstitu-
ton. Each State, as a member of the Confed-
eracy has right to a voice in forming the rules
and regulations for the government of the Ter
ritories but the different sectons-North, South,
East, and West-have no such right II is no
violation of Southern rights to prohibit Slavery,
nor of Northern rights to leave the people to
decide the question for themselves"
Again, in the same speech, my colleague said
Some species of property are excluded by
law in most of the States, well as Territories,
as beng unwie, immoral, or contrary to the
principles of sound public policy For instance,
the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Min
nesota, Oregon, or California, with his bank
The bank may be property by the laws of New
York, but ceases to be so when taken into a
State or Territory where banking is prohibited
by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky,
Ir.p all tha info 1r.. lyo
missed and protected as property in most Of the
States, if not all of them; but no citizen,
whether from the North or South can take this
species of property with him, and hold sell, or
use 1t at his pleasure, in all the Territories, be-
cause it is prohibited by the local LAWN Ore
gOn by the statutes of the Territory, and in tho
Indian country by the acts of Congress. Nor
can man GO there, and take and hold his slave,
for the same reason. These laws, and many
others involving similar principles, directed
against no section and impair the rights of no
{ State of the Union. They are laws against the
Introduction, sale, and use of specific kinds of
property, whether brought from the North or
the South, or from foreign countries"
The distinguished Senator from Michigan, in
bis speech when the Kansas-Nebraska act was
under consideration, devoted large portion of it
to this question, and proved conclusively that
the exclusion of slaves from a Territory was no
upon the equal rights of the people
of the South.
Now, sir, assert that the boosted principle of
the Kansas-Nebraska act which is claimed to be
Of such vital moment, has no sort of importance
except for evil, in consequence of its vagueness
and uncertainty; that it is principle which is
not understood alike in the North and in the
South; and that, while much pains is taken in
the report to discuss constitutional questions it
does not inform us whether under the Constitu-
ton and the Kansas act, slaves may rightly be
aken to and held in that Territory in the absence
IF any municipal law on the subject Nor are
We told distinctly, in the report, whether the Ter
-itorial Legislature has right to prohibit or to
establish Slavery. / admit it does tell us that
he people of the Territory are to regulate their
own domestic institutions in their own way; but
when, is net said.
This clause is understood by some to apply to
he people of Territory when they come to
orm State Government, and that they are to be
permitted hea and not before, to regulate their
own domestic institutions in their own way.
That believe to be the Southern understanding
If the bill. But the author Of the report has
lot thought proper to tell us distinctly whether
t is his understanding or not.
| come next to that portion of the report which
lssails the Emgrant Aid Society. Sir, am not
he apologist of that society. There are Sena-
ors here much better acquainted with its opera
Ions, and much more capable of defending it. if
needs defence, than am but | wish to look
Vt it in the light in which it is presented in this
report. ] will not travel out of the record after
-umors, as has sometimes been charged, but will
lake the statements of the report ITSELF and then
call the attention of the Senate TO the doctrines
which were promulgated when the kansas-Ne-
Draska act was passed. and ask whether there be
anything in the action of the Emigrant Aid So
iiety, as set FORTH not argued in the report at
MI inconsistent with the doctrines which were
promulgated on all sides of the Senate when
hat act was under consideration. The report
saws:
Although the act of incorporation does not
distinctly declare that the company was formed
for The purpose of controlling the domestic in
situations of the Territory of Kansas, and fore
ing 1t into the Union with prohibition Of
Slavery in her Constitution, regardless of the
rights and wishes Of The people, as guaranteed Jv
the Constitution Of the United StGtes and secured
by their organic law, yet the whole history of
the movement, the circumstances in which it
had its origin, and the professions and avowals
of all engaged in it, render it certain and unde-
niable that such was its object"
Thus the charge is distinctly made that the
object of the Emigrant Aid Society was, "regard-
less of the rights and wishes of the people, as
States, and secured by their organic law" to
force Kansas into the Union with prohibition
OF Slavery in her Constitution" Let us see
how that charge compares with the declarations
OF Senators at the time the bill was under con-
sderation. The Senator from New Hampshire
Mr.. HALE took the trouble, few DAYS since.
to read to the Senate the opinions of Senators.
both from the North and The South, delivered
when that bill was pending and think he read
nom the remarks of ten or dozen Senator's in
which they stated in the strongest language that
the question Of the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise was of no practical importance, and that
Slavery could never go TO Kansas. 1t was then
asserted, by some of the advocates of the bill that
every sensible man knew, and every candid man
would admit, that soil and climate forbade the
introduction of slaves into the Nebraska-Kansas
region, which is all above 36o 30| This opinion
was sustained, as tina Senator from New Hamn
SHIRE proved, by Mr.. Petit, of Indiana Mr..
Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut.
Mr.. Thomson, of New Jersey Mr. Brodhead. of
Pennsylvania; Mr.. Badger, of North Carolina
Mr.. Everett, of Massachusetts, (who quotes. az
sustaining him in his opinion, what everybody
knew; Mr.. Douglas, of Illinois; Mr. Dixon
OF kentucky; Mr.. Jones, of Tennessee: and Mr.
Cass, (who quotes all these All these Senators,
except Mr. Everett, were advocates of the bill :
ana it was proclaimed on all sides of the Senate
that no pracucai Importance attached to the
repeal Of the Missouri Compromise, because Kau-
sas was not intended to be slave Territory, and
Slavery would never go there One Senator, on
a previous occasion, had said 81 know of no
man Eho advocates the extension of Slavery
over country now fresR This vas very strong
language, and it is to be found in speech de-
livered in the Senate in l849, by the author of
the report upon which / am commenting, and
afterwards reported in the Congressional Globe.
1t was proclaimed to the world by the advocates
Of the massachusetts bill, that Kansas was to
be free Territory. it vas sad on the face of
the bill that its intention was "not to ieeisiate
Slavery into" the Territory. Then, let me ask,
how did tha En,;orapt Ala Soc;a+,, :, 49, !