The daily union., 1856-12-27

by Congress and Of the right Of ths people govern them
selves and that each separate political community should
determine the question for itself For one, Shareholder as
am with all my sympathies and interests with that sec
on where slavery exists do not desire TO see the insu-
on established in any section on country against inc
wishes OF the people residing therein.
Well sir let us look another provision OF that Kansas
act In the twenyfourth section Il Is provided that
The legislative power of the Territory shall extend 70 all
ghtia subjects Of legislation consistent win ne
on the United States and the provisions OF this act but
Law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal
Of the soil tax shall be imposed upon the property Of the
residents taxed higher than the lands other property OF
residents" ..... ... .a =.a.
Here you have recognition of the Legislative power OF
the people of that Territory. To what does II exendf To
all rightul of legislation You recognise 1t when you
say that Congress has the power 10 egsate upon and
should prohibit It, 1t is act OF legislation, all ad-
mi at time other by the people OF tina, Territory
for the making OF constitution itself Is but another mode
of enacting laws and is therefore legislation
Then, under this clause Of the Kansas BILL what lm'ta
ons there upon the legislature OF the Territory OF Kan
or you bear in mind that what the legislature
does il does by the authority OF the people who elected
them What the limatons2 The constitution OF The
United States and the provisions OF the Kansas bill.
Mr.. H. MARSHALL. wish to ascertain it understand
the gentemans position. Am to understand him as taking
the ground that under the section just read
Congress has the right to delegate to the people OF Ter
rtory the right TO exclude slavery2
Mr.. JONES' ofTennessee. am not here to answer
questions
Mr.. H. MARSHALL But want to know If that is the
gentleman's position.
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. / will say that do not be-
evo that Congress has any power TO delegate AS said
before the territorial laws in opinion receive their VI
ality from the assent implied expressed OF the people
under them.
Mr. H. MARSHALL. And not from Congress.
MIR. JONES' of Tennessee Here then, is this provision
Of the bill in reference the legislative power of that Ter
tory 1t is copy word for word and letter for letter.
from the Utah and New Mexico bills of 1864 part the
compromise of that year. and that very clause
superseded the necessity of touching the Missouri Compro
mise, in my opinion in the Kansas BILL The constitution
of the United States does not prohibit the people of the
Territory of Kansas from introducing slavery did the
Kansas bill ohibit them. Them # neither the constitu
ton this act organizing the Territory-and which
would become vital when the people should give their
sent to it by organizing government under it-prohib-
ed its introduction by the people of Kansas through ter
rtoral action your Missouri Compromise not in the
way in my opinion because the prohibition Is not to be
found either in the constitution or in the Kansas act
Mr.. H. MARSHALL. Will the gentleman allow me TO
make one remark
Mr.. JONES, Of Tennessee / hope the gentleman from
Kentucky will interrupt said nothing to him
during the delivery of his speech and do not wish to
caiecbized on this occasion.
Mr.. II MARSHALL. did not propose to catechize the
gentleman, The gentleman did me injustice and merely
wished to make remark to set the matter right
Mr.. JONES, Of Tennessee Ii not my intention 10
do the gentleman injustice, and If have yield for cor
recion Y
Mr. H. MARSHALL stated in my remarks the other
day, and state this proposition | said that the
Utah and seY Mexico bills gave vitality the legisla-
lures Of those Territories upon the express ratification Of
do that in this particular In the sixteenth section think
il interpoates instead of the will Congress give
the territorial legislation vitality the doctrine of squatter
sovereignty, which denounce.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. ! ask the gentleman whether
he does not endorse the Utah and New Mexico bills
Mr. H MARSHALL. l do.
Mr.. JONES, of Tennessee. then ask the gentleman
whether be den the right aud power upon part Of the
people Of the Territories Of Utah New Mexico to repeal
law Of Mexico prohibiting slavery ID those Territories
Mr.. H. MARSHALL II the gentleman wishes me TO
hOld hat VIII hat
delegates TO the people OF this Territory the power and
right TO ,eisls upon ell rghtfu subjects of legislation
under lie constitution IL resees to Congress the right TO
supervise their iessaoD GHd that the Legislature Goes
not contain within itself the elements o. vitality
Mr.. JONES' Of Tennessee understood the gentleman
deny what he pleased to call squatter sovereignty
ries repea, any Jaw either Of this government
any foreign government which aag he supposed TO be
in force in that Territory either prohibiting slavery or IN
PRODUCING there would he here in his place rep
reseuave upon this hoor and vote overrue the action
Of the people upon this subject
Mr. H. MARSHALL Ny proposition certainly goes 70
that extent
Mr. JONES of Tennessee say to the gentleman, that
the people OF Kansas other Territory Of the United
States, organized political community now, should In
their legislative capacity establish or prohibit slavery
for one win repeal their declare void
what The legislature Of the Territory with the sanction Of
the people have done In the exercise Of their rights Now
sir say that the whole democratic party subscribe
pndesnd H. 10 the principle Of the Kansas and Nebraska
bill that ,be legislature of Territory-ihe legislative
power Of Terrtory-sbal extend to ali rghtfu subjects
egssuor consistent with the constitution Of the pnied
States and the principles Of that bill We may differ as TO
what Ia constitutional power but do propose that
this Congress shall revise what the people there may do
the subject There another tribunal to which the demo-
cratic n-rtv willing that this question when 1t arises
sha 20 for decision But there s another feature Of the
Nebraska bill which regard merely declarsory
OF what were the intentions Of those who ased the bill
refer that part OF the thirty section which reads
as follows:
"Tbst the constitution and laws Of the United States
and effect within the said Territory Of Kansas elsewhere
In tho United States except the eighth section Of the act
preparatory the admission OF Missouri into the Union,
proved March srth eighteen hundred and twenty, which,
being inconsistent with the principle OF Intervention by
Congress with slavery In the States and Territories
coGnsed by the Legislation Of eighteen hundred and hy,
commonly called the compromise measures, hereby de-
clared imperative and void u being the true intent and
meaning OF this act not 70 legsse slavery into any Terri
people thereof perfectly free form and their do
nestle institutions their way, subject only the
stitution OF the United States Provided That nothing
herein contained shall be revive put IN
any law regulation which may have existed prior the
act Of rth March eighteen hundred and twenty either
tectng, establishing prohibiting, abolishng slavery"
Now sir II that the democratic party agree upon
that declaration Of intention what intended
be done by the Congress which passed he Kansas and Ne
brsska cordially and heartily they do upon the
other points TO which have alluded II declares that
the Compromise Of ls20the Missouri restrcon-being
inconsistent with the legislation Of $780, commonly called
the compromise s hereby declared null nope
ratye and void IL being the true intent and meaning
this act not TO egate slavery into the Territory,
exclude IL thereom but TO leave the people thereof
fecy free TO form and regulate their domestic instuons
In their way subject only 70 the constitution Of the
United States. .H
Then sir what do we doi BY the Missouri Compromi.e
prohibited in that Territory beve that the
kaA