Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-01-15

In accordance with the resolution adopted by
the House on Friday-that it is in accordance
with the genius Of our institutions for candidates
| for Office 10 define their political positions,
| Mr.. RICHARDSON rose 10 respond 10 series
of questions propounded by Mr.. ZoLLcoFFER
| He voted for the bills organizing the Territories
| of Kansas and Nebraska, because he thought II
just 10 all. He had said he did not believe slavery
would go there, but did rot support his vote on
that ground He repeated argument he had
made over and over again 10 his constituents, and
II was tins: If a majority Of the people OF Kan
sas or Nebraska are in favor of slavery, they will
have il il majority are opposed to il then they
will not have it. This is the practcal,result of
every theory advocated by the friends Of the
Nebraska and Kansas bill He gave his sanction
10 this principle in supporting theterrtorial bills
| OF 1880, and had uniformly supported the same
principles since whenever presented for his &C
on, and shall continue 10 do so in all future cases
that may arise Ii is principle lying at the foun-
dalton of all popular Governments that the people
| OF each separate or distinct community shall de-
eide for themselves the nature and character OF
the institutions under which they shall live; and
by this principle he was prepared 10 live and die.
| He therefore voted for the Nebraska and Kansas
bill, neither as proslavery nor anti-savery
measure, but as measure OF equal right and
justice to the people of all sections Of our COM
mon country.
| In reply 10 the second question, he said
/ In 1903 we acquired Louisiana; il was slave
territory. In 1920 we divided by line of SO deg
/ 80 min. that territory; north of the line it
be free. In lo45 We annexed Texas; that was
slave territory; we divided that by extending the
line OF SO deg. 80 min. through that; north TO be
| free. In lS4S we acquired territory from Mexico;
that was free. | voted repeatedly to extend the
same line west TO the Pacific ocean. | voted for
that line with few Representatives from the
! North, and the whole body OF Southern Represen-
tatives. When gave those votes did not be-
Heve then, nor do believe now, that violated
/ the Constitution of the United States If you
have power under the Constitution 10 exclude
| slavery from half of Territory, think you have
| power 10 exclude from all though such exer-
| else would be unj ust and wrong have never,
/ therefore, voted 10 exercise that power, except
! upon the principle of compromise.
/ And in reply 10 the second and third he SAID:
/ The Constitution does not, IN my opinion, carry
the institutions OF any of the States INTO the Ter
ritores; but it affords the same protection there
10 the institutions OF one Stale as OF another. The
citizen of Virginia is much entitled in the
common territory to the protection OF his property
under The Constitution the citizen of Illinois;
| but both are dependent upon the legislation Of the
Territorial Government Tor laws TO protect their
| properly, of whatever kind il may be. Thus il
| will be seen that, though there may be upon this
| point difference theoretically, involving ques-
tons for judicial decision, yet there is none prsc
ticaly among the friends OF non-intervention by
! Congress, the practical result is TO place the
decision OF the questions in the hands ofthose who
are most deeply interested in its solution, namely,
| the people of the Territory who have made ii
their home, and whose interests the most
deeply involved in the character of the institutions
under which they 10 live Ii this great prin-
| cple of non-intervention and selEgovernment is
wrong then indeed the American revolution was
fought in vain, and il Is time We cease TO venerate
! the memory OF the patriotic dead, who purchased
with their fortunes and blood the free institutions
| of the separate, independent, and coequa States
! forming the Union under which we have pros
perously and happily grown 10 be so great.
| After further proceeding,
i Mr.. BANKS, of Massachusetts, then arose 10
address the House. He yesterday voted with
| pleasure for the resolution presented by the hon.
| orabe gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. ZoLLI.
1 coFFER) He had accepted no nomination, and
did not understand upon what principle gentle
men had voted for him, except that such was their
choice. He therefore did not feel himself called
| upon, as candidate, 10 answer any inierrogato-
ries that gentlemen might be pleased to put 10
him but having fixed opinions upon all the great
| questions in which the country was interested,
| as a member of the House representing district
Of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, he was
| free 10 speak and had no hesitation in responding
/ 10 the interrogatores which had been submitted
TO the gentleman from Illinois by the gentleman
/ from Tennessee.
i In reply 10 the first question propounded by the
gentleman from Tennessee, he would distinctly
| say that he did not regard the Kansas and Ne
braska bill as promotive OF the formation of free
States inasmuch as il repealed the prohibition of
| the institution OF slavery the section Of
| country 10 which that measure applied.
1 In regard to the second question he should give
| a general reply in the affirmative. He believed in
| the constitslionality of the Wimot proviso, and
\ that il within the power of Congress TO pro-
hbit the institution of slavery in all the Territories
belonging TO the United States. As 10 whether or
/ not he should advocate the passage of such an act
\ in regard TO territory where il was clearly
necessary in consequence OF its prohibition by
| pre-exsting local laws, he had nothing to say.
Very likely, if he thought il necessary, he should
be willing 10 vote for a bill without that prohibi-
| ton; but with regard TO the territory covered by
| the measures Of 1880 had he al that time held
scat here and believed il necessary TO prohibit
slavery therein, that the Wilmot proviso should be
passed, he wished II distinctly understood that he
should have veted for II.
As 10 the third question, he did not believe that
the Constitution carried the institution OF slavery
into the Territories of the United States. He
believed that the Constitution Of the United States
was intended 10 do justice between the different
sections of the country, to the South well 10
the North. He was for that to-day, and believed
that justice shsuld be done TO both North and
South, and in speech or declaration that had
ever fallen from his lips, far he could remem-
Der, had he expressed sentiments different from
these. But he believed that the Con stitution was
contemplated by its trainers an instrument Of
ultimate universal freedom and that il was looked
10 such by the world al large and that the flag
which symbolized which represented it, and made
the territory over which il waved, in whatever
quarter Of the globe, so long il covered Amer.
can citizens American Territory, was the symbol
OF that ultimate universal freedom. He trusted
that il should ever wave such, and nothing less.
As the latter part of the last question, respec-
ting the territory acquired from France, il was but
a repetition Of the first interrogatory, with the
addition of statement OF fact. In regard TO that
statement Of fact he had 10 say that 1t had been
doubted whether the institution of slavery existed
in that territory at the time Of its acquisition.
Without going into the subject ofthe doubt rest
| ing upon the question whether France, by the
decree of 1894, had abolished the institution Of
slavery there he thought that Congress was right
in nterdctng the institution that territory If
such legislation was necessary to make IL free. If
il was necessary, in order to gain 10 the South the
right 10 carry the institution Of slavery there. that
| the introduction Of 1920 should be repealed, he
thought that the Congress Of 1853 was wrong in
enacting that repeal and he could but say, with
| the light that had come TO him this question,
that the Introduction Of 1920 having forbidden and
abolished the institution Of slavery, IL il existed
there, its repeal in 1854, inasmuch as il allowed
| slavery 10 go there, unless under impossible cir