Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-01-31

. Mr. Campbell Of Ohio ask ny colleague
Mr.. Stanton to withdraw his objection and al
low the gentlemen from Georgia to proceed with
his remarks II we are to have a debating
eiety here viii seek an opportunity to reply to
the gentleman. and therefore / desire that he
shall be fusiy heard.
Mr.. Stanton w.tl.reW his objections
hr- Stcqtcus. Il IS not ny intention, Mr.
Gers, to tFeSpaSs on the indulgence Of this
House, nor shall DO It. | have been brOu ght
into the discussion mach farther than l bad any
idea when | rose. Bnt there is one remark
which wish to make before concluding what |
wished to say: and that is in regard to the doc
trine Of squattcr sovereignty. Of which several
gentlemen have spoken. 7 think the gentleman I
from Virginia LNlr. CaUlislel spoke this morn I
ing-lf understood him aright--of the principle
of sqHatter sovereignty embraced in the Kansas
Nebraska BILL Nov, these terms of squatter
sovereignty and - nOu-tRterreRtOa' are words
which have been differently understood by differ
ent gentlemen. and differently by the same gen
temen NJ different times as have slated wish
70 say that. as l understand SquatteF sovereign
ty' now, and Is have always understood il,
there is not particle of it in tie Kansas bill.
What understand by "sguatter sovereignty -
Is the inherent and 'OCSrsfga rjg8f OF the people
Of the territory settling on the common domain
to establish ana set Gp governments tor them
selves, without looking TO Congress, and indie
? pendeatly CT Congress.
= Now. sir, that idea was embraced by some
trine Of - HOa-iutervenjiou by Congress and
with this view call the attention Of the gentle
/ man from Tennessee, Nr Z0lhcOaer who has
, read from my speech IN 1850. when l used the
: term non-interventou.' Many persons en-
braced that with the other views in connection
r with the term which have referred TO- Against q
t that doctrine, with that understanding Of it,
: always stood opposed, and am opposed now
; There Is not single feature, not particle Of
i "squatter sovereignty in the Kansas bill, on
TlanE Nv "a.
i emanates from Congress. Their Legislature,
their judiciary, every department and the whole
e machinery OF their government proceeded from
n Congress the inherent sovereign right Of the
d people to establish government Independently
n OF Congress is not recognized i'm a single clause
1 Of that bill It gentlemen mean by squatter-
: sovereignty this principle, l say to them that
there Is not particle Of it in that bill and am
a as much against it as anybody.
Mr.. Zolliconer. VIII the gentleman from
3 Georgia allow me to ask question:
i MIR. Stephens Yes sir.
- Mr. Zollicoaer. would be pleased to know
4 whether the gentleman from Georgia interprets
. the kanSas-Nebraska BIN to give to the people
10 the legislative body. of the Territories Of
, Kansas and Nebraska the power to abolish
!, slavery during the existence Of the territorial
government?
MIR. stephens. l ansWer the gentleman.
think that the Kansas Nebraska bill giges to the
" people Of the Territory. grants 10 them all the
power that Congress bad over it, and no more.
Ir. Zoiljcoacr. DO you believe that Congress
had no power 20 abolish slavery in that Territory
: during lis territorial existence.
Mr.. stephens. | think it would be unjust and
, a great wrong for Congress to exercise any such
: power
a Mr.. Zolleofgr Do you think ii would be
Al unconstitutional
h Mr.. Stephens I think there is no power in
"a The Constitution Co do 10, and it would be wrong
10 from any resulting power, denying as il would
e an equal and just enjoyment Of the public do
d main by all the people-aud unjust and tanta-
l. mount 30 all usurpation 90 90 H. Sir. was going
a TO say that the gentleman holds that Congress
a has no such power -
/ Mr.. Zollicohcr, (interruPtins) Do you believe
y that Congress had the power at all2
r Mr.. Stephens. Hear nae through. What l
a was going TO say is, that all the power which
Congress possessed over the Territories on this
h subject is in this BILL given to the people And
u the gentleman holds that Congress could not
% prohibit slavery. II so, The people then cannot.
,. Now. what hold is that the Constitution is ST.
/. lent upon the subject. But any such act by
q | Congress in the case supposed would be an act
e in my opinion, OF great injustice and would be
tantamOunt 20 open violation of any Of the
v express prOviiOns Of the Constitution. All the
: power, however, which Congress had over the
IS subject is granted 20 the people, aud they have
V got none else say this, and that | voted for
= the bill with this understanding Of its import
!, aud dete mination that whatever the people Of
n that Territory should do the subject OF slavery
e whether their Legislatures should pass laws to
i protect or 30 exclude il, or simply 10 leave it
4 without protection should for myself abide by
e their acts. was for taking OF an odious dis
e elimination and an unjust restriction by Congress
n against the South. and leaving the question for
r those TO determine who, going from all sections
.e alike were most deeply Interested in IT, accord
Ia ing to the principles OF the territorial bills Of
A 1850
m Mr.. Zollicoier. / do not wish to misunder-
he stand the gentleman from Georgia; and there
n fore ask him whether / am to understand him as
: saying that il would be wrong and unjust for
II Congress to prohibit slavery in the Territory;
D. yet that it has the constitutional power to do So
and that Congress conferred that power upon the
p, Terrtoryg
' Mr.. stephens No, sir; the gentleman. It seems,
s wishes 20 make me say what / did not say. L
. never said tlat Congress bad the power to pro-
t, h,L!t slavery in the Territories.
. Mr. Zollicohcr The gentleman from Georgia
a m,sapprehends me, ID be- suppOses that / intend
= 20 represent him as saying what did not under
: stand him to say.
: Mr. stephens Very well, then; do not make
= me say what have not said.
: Mr. ZoIlicolcr. IL seems then that misappre-
% hended the gentleman; but chat certainly was
II my understanding of the purp0rt of his answer
y 10 the question which put to him.
= Mr stephens. Wei, then, the gentleman was
not attending 90 what | did say, because the
m whole tenor OF my remarks shows that, IN my
r. opinion Nhere is no direct stinct or original
IN power conferred OI Congress by the Constitution
a 10 exclude slavery from any OF the Territories.
u or any portion OF them; but On the acquisition
s. Of territory, not contemplated by the COnsttu-
a. ton, fair division OF the country might Be made,
u have stated between the parties interested :.
u by way OF compromise. / mean to say, l do
10 not think such division violates the COnsiitu-
u ton; bat In no other sense do hold that Con-
e gress could c0nstituti0nally agree 10 the exclH-
IS sion OF slavery from any Of the common terri
.e tory, or any part Of t.
IS Nr Ioiiconer. That may not misapprehend
rs the gentleman ir0m Georgia as Is seems kaye
ie done. for dad IL difficult 20 understand him,
3 must ask him another question. / understand
ie BIN 10 say that ia the spirit Of compromise Con-
ol gress has the power 10 abolish slavery in part
4 OF the territory-say in half of the territory
Now il Congress has the power 10 abolish slavery
$ In bali the territory has Il not also the power 70
Of abolish il In the gboleg
n Mr.. stephens. l have not used the word
y abolish in this connection today bot say
y no 20 his question.
Mr.. Z0lcoier. Wen, "prOhbitr'
Of Mr.. stephens. Yes. sir, have used that word,
y and exclude, aud restrict Inow say distinctly
that il does not follow, in my opinion, that be-
= cause Congress could c0nstituti0nally provide