Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1856-10-02
From the Wooster Republican.
The Dunn Bill. p

The Dunn Bill. -
To enable all our readers to Judge for
themselves as to what the Dunn Bill pro-
vides IN relation to Slavery in Kansas, we
publish the entire Bill on the first page of
the Republican of this week. We invite
the attention Of every honest man to its
provisions. 1t will be seen that the only
sections in the entire bill which refer to
slavery, are the first and last or trenty-
fourth. The first section gives Congress
power to divide the territory in any way it
shall deem proper and convenient, and to
attach ''aH or any portion thereof to any
other State or Territory of the United
States, EXCEPT TO SUCH AS BY
ANY LAW OR USAGE MAY AT
ANY TINE TOLERATE THE IN STI-
TlON OF SLAVERY. Here il will be
seen that Congress is absolutely forbidden
to attach any part of Kansas to any terrific
nv phere the institution of Slavery exists
So far from establishing slavery in Kansas,
itforbids any portion of that territory from
being connected with Slave territory, as
any man can see by reading for himself
And yet.the tools of Pierce and Atchison
in Wayne County, say that the Dunn bill
establishes Slavery in Kansas.
The last section provides for the repeal
of portion of the 14th and 32d sections
of the Kansas-N Nebraska act, and then de-
clares that the Sth section of the act for
the admission of Missouri into the Union,
Tin other words the Missouri Compromised
shaH6e ririred and in full force IN saidter-
ritory. Three Provisos are then added to
the section. The first, that any person
LEGALLY held 10 service, in said terrific
ries, shall not be discharged from such, By
reason Of such revival and repeal Of said
Sh section, if permanently removed out of
said territory before the first of January
1883 The second Proviso applies TO chill
dren born of females LEGALLY held to
service in the territory, and is in substance
the same as the first. The third proviso
is to extend the fugitive slave law in Kan
sas. l; is the same provisions as that con-
tanned in the ordinance of 1887; the same
souri, Compromise; the same as that cop.
led in the Kan3as-Nebraska act, and pre-
cisely the same as the provisions on the
same subject in the Toombs bill, which the
wet nurses of Pierce Democracy. in Wayne
County cling to, and sustain with so much
zeal. Independent of all this, the fugitive
slave law is only one of the laws of the
United States, which any lawyer ought to
know extend for good or for evil, over the
entire Union, including Of course, the terri
tories. The Fugitive Slave Law was there
fore in force in Kansas, as soon as the Kan
sas Nebraska act became law, which was
in 1854.
So far from establishing Slavery in Kan
sas this section expressly avoids recogniz-
ing its existence there, as claimed by the
pro-slavery supporters of Buchanan. 1t is
well known that the Missouri Compromise,
which was repealed by Douglas, Toombs
Il Co., forever prohibited Slavery in Kan
sas; and no sooner was this barrier broken
down, than slaves were taken into the ter
ritory from Missouri and other Southern
States. Judge Lccompt the miserable
Lickspittle of Pierce, took his slaves with
him into that territory, and they are there
now. Others did the same, and the Dunn
bill only proposed that these slaves should
be REMOVED from the territory before
January 1858, or that they should be free
forever after. The bill simply restores the
Missouri Compromise, and says that, ifthere
be any persons LEGALLY held to service
in the Territory, they may be removed be-
fore the lst of January 1858, or shall be
free. And this is constructed by the Bor-
party leaders to establish Slave
ry in Kansas. None but knaves and pet
tifoegcrs of the lowest cast would resort to
such low, contemplate, misrepresentation.
The people will rebuke with honest indig-
nation the vile attempts to deceive of the
disciples of Stringfellow and Atchison.
The bill has many good provisions. If
it had become law, the infamous criminal
laws of Kansas would have been blotted
out at one sweep; the Kansas prisoners
would all have been set free; in short it
would have established freedom in Kansas
and security to person and property, The
and Doughfaces in Congress
knew it, and that was the reason they vo-
ted TO man against the bill. Does any
body suppose that Tobmbs, Butler, Brooks,
and all the S!a eholders in Congress would
have voted against the bill, if it could have
been, in any possible mannnr, constructed
to establish or extend SIavery9 Never
Neither would Douglas nor Pugh nor any
lfhcr dOuOhface