Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-05-10

coupled with a condition which makes it i'm
possible for us to use it, and which reserves
for the exclusive use of the North; and then
when we utter some faint complaint, when WI
modestly suggest that this is not very fair, W,
are answered by shrieks for freedom ant
the people Of the North have their prejudice
! and passions infamed by appeals in which
they are told of southern aggression" and o
the "usurpations of the southern slave power
Before leaving this branch of the subject,
desire to say few words in relation to tn,
principles contained in the Kansas-Nebrasks
act--not that they are necessary in my part 0
the country--not that the people of the Soutf
have the slightest doubt in relation to tht
policy or propriety OF these enactments--bu
\ for the purpose of answering a disingenuou
argument which has been repeatedly urged il
both branches of Congress. We are told tina
those who advocated the passage of this act
and now sustain it, when at the North endeay
or to persuade northern people that it is thu
best possible enactment for freedom and tha
its advocates at the South tell the people of the
South that it is an entire security for the righ
of the South and then it is said, with some
/ show of reason, that one side or the other has
been cheated.
| Mr.. President, those who use that argument
at the North are right; those who sustain that
| bill upon the grounds which have just men
toned, at the South, are right. Neither cheats
neither is cheated The history of the passage
Of that bill is familiar to us all. There was a
series of propositions presented to its advo
Gates, upon all of which they could agree save
one All agreed upon the right of State to
enter into this Union whenever it had sufficient
population, and had formed a republican con-
sttution, whether that constitution established
or prohibited slavery. That provision was,
therefore, inserted in the bill All agreed that
it was prejndicial to the best interests of the
country that the subject of slavery should be
discussed in Congress. All agreed that,
whether Congress had the power or not to ex
cude slavery from the Territories, it ought not
to exercise it. All agreed that, if that power
was owned by us, we ought to delegate it to
the people whose interests were to be affected
| by the institutions established at home We
| therefore put that into tie bill.
Then came the point upon which we dis
agreed. Some said, as say, Congress has no
power to exclude slavery from the common
territory; it cannot delegate it, and the people
| in the Territory cannot exercise it except at
| the time when they form their constitution.
Others said, Congress has the power; Congress
can delegate it, and the people can exercise it.
Still others said-my honorable friend from
Michigan Mr.. Cass said-that the power to
legislate on that subject was power inherent
In every people with whom the doctrine of self
government was anything more than an empty
name. On this proposition we disagreed; and
to what conclusion did we come? We said in
| this bill that we transferred to the people OF
| that Territory the entire power 10 control, by
their own legislation, their own domestic nsti-
tutions, subject only to the provisions of the
constitution; that we would not interfere with
them; that they might do as they pleased on
the subject; that the constitution alone should
govern. And then, in order to provide a
means by which the constitution could govern,
by which that single undecided question could
be determined, we Of the South conscious that
we were right, the North asserting the same
confidence in its own doctrines, agreed that
every question touching human slavery or hu-
man freedom should be appealable to the
Supreme Court of the United States for its de-
csion.
There is the Kansas bill Therefore, when
l advocate this bill among my people at home,
conscious that they share my confidence in the
correctness of the principles which / here enun
cated, l say to them, in all candor and sin
cerity, on are safe under this bill.n Let the
gentlemen of the North who profess ar equal
confidence in what they believe to be constitu-
tional principles on this subject go to the same
tribunal, and follow the example which the
South has ever set them, of being a law-abidipg
and law-observing people, and this question
will then be finally settled by a tribunal from
which none of us will attempt an appeal.
Strange, strange, sir, that that section Of this
Union which bears throughout the country the
reputation of being so excitable, so passionate,
so violent, is always ready to submit its claims
to the decision of the tribunals of the country;
while that which is called the calm, cold, quiet,
calculating North, always obeying the law,
always subservient to the behests OF the consti-
tuition, whenever this question Of slavery arises
and this alone-appeals to Sharpes rifles
instead of courts Of justice.
Mr.. BUTLER. Those rifles are now better
known as Beccher's Bibles.
Mr.. BENJAMIN. Mr.. President, is there
not something significant in this2 Does not the
simple statement OF this fact establish conclu-
sively upon which side is the right2 What
man, confident of his title, ever hesitated to
submit it 10 the Supreme Court of the Uuited
StatesY What man, conscious of the weakness
Of his pretensions, did not dread 10 submit
those pretensions to that tribunal2 Let the
people Of the country compare the attitude of
the two sections OF the confederacy on this sub
ject, and let them draw their own inference.
The next proposition to which wish very
briefly to advert is one which emanates from
the distinguished author Of almost every heresy
that appears on this subject. The honorable
Senator from New York Mr.. Seward has
thought proper to tell us that slavery is an
outlaw under the law Of nations" Well, sir,
that will be spread through the machinery of
the federal post office. 1t is printed in your
Globe. 1t will be read, probably, by millions
Of people who know nothing whatever in rela-
tion to the law Of nation; but they viii think
that a man Of the eminent reputation Of the
distinguished Senator from New York as n
lawyer and as statesman could not possibly,
before the Senate OF the United States, assert
principle of the law of nations so broadly
and so unqualifedly unless il we're correct.
Sir it has done its mischief and it will do more.
No such faint voice as mine can follow 1t to
every village, to every hamlet, to every cottage
TO which il has spread. Still, IL is not otimproper,
as these propositions in turn are made, that in
turn they should be refuted. Mine be the easy
task on this one--too easy to merit the least
credit.
L