The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-04-03

Mr. IhUMbULL. L shall be very happy to
answer the Senator The propriety of admitting
a State into the Union is to be determined when
that State makes application for admission. It is
not absolute right Congress is not bound to
admit into the Union every new State which pre-
sents republican Constitution whether tolerating
Slavery or containing provision prohibiting it.
Ii Is matter to be decided under the circum-
stances existing at the time and if ever an ap-
piication shall be made, while have the honor to
hold seat here, either by State presenting a
free or slave Constitution, and shall believe
that the admission of such State into this Union
will seriously endanger its existence will never
give my vote tor its admission. Ii Utah, with her
plurality wife system, and other obnoxious pro-
visions in her Constitution, tending in my udg-
ment TO sap the foundations of our institutions if
admitted to an equal heritage with us, should ask
admission, Congress would have the right as
conceive, to refuse it until the obnoxious provis-
ions were stricken out.
In advocating these views, am committing no.
body but myself, for | am not speaking for any
political organization in the country / would
not undertake to speak for Senators on the oppo-
site side OF this Chamber, although from child
hood up have always maintained, to the extent
OF my ability, Democratic principles, and sus-
tanned Democratic men. / have done so on prn-
ciple, believing the policy of the Democratic
party best for the interests Of the country. |
never was one OF those, however, who supported
a measure without examination, merely because
it was proposed by political friends or con-
demned it without investigation, simply because
il came from political opponent. Having, my
self, been united with none of the new parties
OF the day, whether they be called Republican or
American, or by any other name-having been
associated with no political organization in my
life, public or private, except the Democratic
party it will not be understood that in the views
which advance, profess to speak for anybody
except for myself, and the constituency in part
represent.
Another branch Of this report, to which desire
to call attention, is in these words:
In obedience to the Constitution, the Kansas
Nebraska act declared, in the precise language
OF the Compromise Measures of 1850, that when
admitted State, the said Territory, or any
portion of the same shall be received into the
Union with or without Slavery, as their Consti-
tuition NAV prescribe at the time OF their adj
mission
From this clause, which has practical effect
whatever, either in the Compromise Measures of
1850 or the Kansas Nebraska act, it has been
commended that the Compromise Measures Of 1850
were inconsistent with the Compromise of 1920.
| deny the position There is no Inconsistency
between them. The Missouri Compromise, as
already shown, did not prevent the admission of
a State into the Union with or without Slavery,
its Constitution might prescribe at the time of
lis admission. The clause incorporated into the
kansas-Nebraska act does not have the effect to
bring State into the Union, either with or with
out Slavery, or to bind any future Congress to do
SO. Congress will act on that question when it
arises. When Kansas shall present herself, with
a Constitution either establishing or prohibiting
Slavery, is there any Senator who will consider
himself bound by declaratory provision inserted
in the act organizing her Territorial Government?
presume not. This report concludes with the
recommendation of the passage of bill to enable |
the people of Kansas to form State Government |
Is it not competent for Congress- if it should think
proper to insert in that bill provision that this
particular clause shall be repealed, or to insert |
a clause, that Slavery shall not exist in Kansas
while Territory?
The assumption, then, that the clause which | |
have cited, and which was inserted in the Terri |
torial acts of 1850, is inconsistent with the Mis-
souri, Compromise, is not mantainable, unless you |
say that the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting |
Slavery in Territory, is to have effect after that
Territory becomes State, which | deny. This
report proceeds TO quote further from the Kansas
Nebraska act, as follows:
90 Ii being the true intent and meaning of this |
act, not TO legislate Slavery into any State or
Territory, nor TO exclude it therefrom, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form
and regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution Of
the United States"
Why thrust into this provision the word State? |
as If there were somebody in the country who /
wanted Congress to legislate Slavery into State
or ont of State? No person, far as I know, |
maintains such position; and it is well known |
that this clause in the Kansas Nebraska act, |
couched in the language in which it is has given
rise to various constructions in different parts of
the Union. | believe it is the universal under |
standing with Southern men, that under this |
provision they have right to go with their |
slaves into the Territory of Kansas, and hold |
them there as such. majority of those who
voted for the kansas-Nebraska act, and who car
ried it through Congress, understand that the
moment the Missouri Compromise repealed, |
those Territories were open to the admission of
Slavery. This has been the practical operation
Of the law. have in my possession the proceed
ings of a mass meeting held in the Territory of
Kansas, early as September, 1854, before any
Territorial Legislature convened, and Of course
before there was any legislative action in the
Territory on the subject of Slavery. Among their
resolutions lind these, endorsing the principles
Of the Kansas Squatter Society.
That Kansas Territory, and as a consequence
the State of Kansas, of right should be, and
therefore shall he, Slave Territory.
4" We hereby declare that as this GSquatters' I
society embraces nine-tenths of the present set
will exercise the right OF expeling from the Ter
ritory, or otherwise Furnishing, any individual
or individuals who may come among us, and
by act, conspiracy, other illegal means, en-
tice away our slaves, or clandestnely attempt
in any way or form 10 affect our rights of prop
erty in the same"
How did it happen that there were slaves in
the Territory at that early day, and that nine
tenths of the settlers should resolve to expe from
the Territory any individual who should attempt
to affect their right of property in the same,
less, in the absence of any local law on the sub
ject the pro-siavery party supposed they had
right 10 hold slaves In the Territory This ac-
ton of the Squatters' Society took place before
the first emgrants who went to Kansas under the
patronage of the Emigrant Aid Society had
rived ia the Territory, and shows, not only the
construction the Squstters' Society put on the
KaasaS-Nebraska SCI, hut g fixed determination,
from the outset, to force Slavery into Kansas by
violence.
am aware that the Kansas act was differently
understood in other parts of the Union.
The distinguished Senator from Michigan Mr..
CAss believes, if | understand has position
rectly, that Slavery cannot exist without a mu-
nicipal law to protect it; and that in the absence
of any local law on the subject, Slavery cannot
legally exist in any of our Territories. That was
the doctrine CT the whole country a few years
ago. The committee have ret thought proper to
tell us, in this lengthy report, whether it is the
doctrine now. Such formerly the law, South
as well as North. wish to read an extract, not
however, from tbs report, which have taken
lpop this subject. 1t is this
"Ths relation of owner and slave Is, IN the
States Of the Union in which it has legal exist
ence a creature of municipal iaw. Although
perhaps, in none of them statute introducing
| il as to the blacks can be produced, it is be-
leyed thai in all, statutes were passed for reg
ulating and dissoiviRg it"