The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-01-03

no doubt that there was majority here feeling
as Mr.. Fuller felt and not as Mr.. Richardson
felt. The gentleman should have consulted the
latent feelings here in regard TO Americanism.
by rendering the chair to the gentleman whose
conceded sentiments were consistent with the
known sentiments of majority OF the House
Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, did hot
propose to discuss the question whether the
power to legislate with reference to Slavery IN
the Territories existed in Congress or IN the
people of the Territories. He, however, had mo-
doubt that the legislation which had occurred
in Kansas. under the bill of the last Congress,
was valid, and that under that bill the people
of that Territory had the right to protect slave
property. He had no doubt that the people OF
Kansas might decline to pass laws protecting
slave property. There was no provision IN the
Constitution which required that they should
enact such laws. He was understood TO incline
to the opinion. that, under the Kansas and Ne
braska act, the people ofthose Territories might
prohibit Slavery. He had voted for the bill,
not caring whether the courts should decide the
one way or the other. If the people of the
Territories were against Slavery why, of course,
they would not have it.
Mr.. Seward thought it was obvious that they
could not harmonic on his resolution, and he
therefore withdrew it.
Mr.. Smith, Of Virginia, renewed it. he had
supposed that If any opinion was more unlver-
sal than another, it was that Territorial Gov
eminent, in a state OF infancy, had no power to
allow or prohibit Slavery. The Federal Gov
eminent. having no right to admit or prohibit
Slavery, had no right to delegate such power
The people under the Kansas and Nebraska
act had the right to protect all property, but
had no power to create a fundamental law by
which Slavery was to be admitted or excluded.
L .oI h. q in hio
Mr.. Jones, Of Tennessee, was one Of those
who believed that all power was i'll the people
that all power not delegated to the Federal
Government. was still in the people and the
States If, then, the people and the States had
delegated to the Government the power to leg
islate upon the domestic affairs of the Terrific
ries, the Government, by the Kansas and Ne
braska bill, had delegated, as far as it could,
that power to the people of the Territories. If,
however the people and the States had never
delegated that power to the Government, then
it rested in the people and in the States. In
| his opinion, the Kansas and Nebraska act
recognised the full force and power, in all its
vigor, of the right of the people of the Terrific
res to legisate over this subject, prior to their
organization as n State Government, as fully
and as completely as was recognised the power
OF the people of the States over the subject Of
all domestic questions not delegated to the
Government. Gentlemen might call it what
they please" non-intervention,' "squatter SOW
ereignty," or popular sovereignty" it was a
power of the people, which they had never del
egated to the Government; and, in his opinion,
they, and they alone, should exercise it, as well
while in Territorial condition in a State
| Government.
Mr.. Smith, of Virginia, withdrew his resoiu-
ton.
Mr.. Cadwalader, of Pennsylvania, submitted
the following resolution
Res0ired, That the resolution, by which the
time to be occupied i'll debate was limited, be-
rescinded.
Mr.. c. supported his resolution in few re-
marks, when,
On motion of Mr.. Washburne, Of Illinois, it
was laid on the table.
There being loud demands for the call of the
roll, the House proceeded to the seventy-third