The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1856-05-15

enough to suppose that the constitution could
be extended by law over Territory which
il did not reach without such law! will
answer this question. l will tell him the
man. II was no less a person than Daniel
Webster--New England's great Statesman,
whom she delighted to call the great ex-
FOUNDER of the constitution. Senators who
were then members Of this body have not
forgotten, and will not soon forget, the de.
bate between Mr.. w ebster and Mr.. Calhoun
upon this very ponit, in which the former
contended that the Consultation Of the Uni.
ted States did not extend over Territories
without an act of Congress to that effect;
while, on the other hand the great Carolina
insisted that the constitution was co.exten.
sive with the limits and covered all the Ter.
ritories pertaining to the republic. Without
endorsing the peculiar opinions of Mr.. Web
ster on this point, Mr.. Clay did not hesitate
in Difference to them, to adopt in the Com.
promise Of 1850. the identical provisions
which the senator from Vermont now at.
tempts to ridicule, under the supposition that
introduced It into the Nebraska act for the
first time in our legislation. copied the
provision from the compromise measures Of
1860 for the same reasons which inducea Mr..
Clay to adopt it, although it is but fair to say
that never did concur in the opinion Of Mr.
Webster that the Constitution did not apply
to the Territories without an act of Con.
gress carrying it there. ...,. ..-
Mr.. SEWARD. Does the Senator wish
me to answer now!
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Yes, Sir.
Mr.. SEWARD. Then, my answer is,
that such being the constitution, he is wrong
in his premises that am desirous to admit
the State of KanSas for the benefit of the
negro. 1t must be for the benefit OF the
white man. .. ......... sT-
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Am to understand the
senator that he has abandoned the cause Of
the negro upon the ground that his freedom
and equality are Inconsistent, with the rights
OF the white man What has become OF
his professions of sympathy for the poor ne.
gro! What are we to think of the sinceri-
ty of his professions upon this subject!
Mr.. SEWARD. That is another thing.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. This is the very thing.
If all other considerations are to be made
to yield to the paramount object of prohb.
iting slavery in Kansas upon the ground ,hut
the inequality which it imposes is unjust to
the negro, will that injustice be removed by
adopting constitution which in effect de-.
clares that the negro, whether free or slave,
shall never tread the soil, nor drink the wa
ter, nor breathe the air OF Kansas The
senator from New York admits that the con.
stituIion with which he proposes by his bill
to admit Kansas, contains such provision
Under the code of laws enscted by the ter.
ritorial legislature of Kansas. which the
senator, in common with his party, processes
to consider monstrous and barbarous, ne.
gro may 60 to Kansas and be protected in
all his rights so long as he obeys the laws
of the land. In order to get rid of those
lews the senator from New York proposes
to give effect to constitutional provision
which is designed to prevent the negro for.
ever from entering the State !!
should like to hear from the Senator
from Massachusetts on this point. believe
he took particular pains few years ago to
arraign the State of Illinois for inserting q
similar clause in her constitution.
Mr.. SUMNER. Never.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Well. perhaps it was
his predecessor, [Mr. Winthrop.] Upon re-
Election. / think it was. / recollect that it
once became my duty to vindicate the right
of my yown State to insert such clause in
her constitution against the assaults of
Massachusetts, senator. Had the present
senator been here at that time, and found it
necessary to have spoken upon the subject.
is it assuming to much to venture the opin-
ion that he would have joined in that con.
demnation.
Mr.. SUMNER. should condemn it, Ger.
tainly. .t.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Then, will the Sena.
tor approve in the constitution of Kansas
what he condemns in the constitution of II.
linois ! would like to hear the senators
response to this inquiry. If such provis.
ion is wrong in Illinois. is it right in Kansas!
Had not the democratic State OF Illinois as
good right to adopt such provision as the
free-soil party Of Kansas! Will the sena.
tor from Massachusetts vote for the bill in
troduced by the senator from New York to
admit Kansas, at a time when she has not
one-'hird Of the requisite population. with
such constitution !!
do not wish to be misunderstood on this
point. object to the admission Of Kansas
ct this time. and under existing circumstan.
ces, on entirely different grounds. affirm
the right Of Illinois TO put such clause in
her constitution. The people OF Illinois
had right to do as they pleased on that sub.
ject. We tried slavery while Territory,
notwithstanding the ordinance OF 1857, until
we found that in our climate and with our
productions it was not good for US to retain
1t, and for that reason we abolishhed and
a. {