The daily union., 1856-12-25

under those institutions We think il Is enough for Il
attend our own business and let the business OF
neghbors alone and that If the aboOnists would attend
70 their own business and stop their eternal agitation o.
the slavery question il would be better for the slaves and
the whole country.
Now, Mr. Speaker the gentleman from Ohio [Mr NIcH
yesterday spread before the House. matter OF great
Importance hand-bill calling democratic meeting IN
Of the northern States during the late canvass
| headed HBUcHAAAE, BRKCKRRIDeE AND FREE KANSAS
Other gentlemen believe have paraded the same hand
bill and with air, of triumph too, much as 10 say
This will be regarded at the South conclusive evidence
Of the unsoundnes of the northern democracy upon the
slavery question: such handbl in the late can
but there was what oftf Why, sir what does Il
amount tot Have not already said that not ID ia-
Of extending slavery and that the democratic party OF
the North not in of extending sayery-tha they
in favor Of Kansas being free Stae But how made
free Sate2 Not by congressional Intervention Not by
the mpernent interference OF emgrant aid societies Not
all But by the free unbiased will of her citizens
We say border ruans" in Missouri 10 abotonists in
the North and to fanatics everywhere "ands of OF this
people; give them far possible freedom TO govern
themselves and TO work out their own destiny"
We are favor Of ree Kansas in that If there
any such hand-bil has been referred toheugh
heard Of anythat its meaning or else that
in favor of free white in conradistncton TO
black men that wanted the people who went to Ter
tory 10 free to determine the character OF their own
Institutions
Mr., II. MARSHALL wish my friend from Indiana
would state his opinion on single question.
Mr.. ENGLISH know the gentlemanis is an experienced
debaer and may possibly get some advantage over me II
Mr.. COBB of Georgia. He has not done so yet that s
certain
Mr.. H. MARSHALL. When the gentleman from Indiana
speaks of the freedom Of the people of Territory, does he
that the people when in territorial condition have
that freedom
Mr. ENGLISH Monsieur Tonson come again 7"
Laugher believe that the will of the people ought to
be carried out The democratic party North and South
der somewhat the time when that will is to be ascer-
tanned but all agree that when 1t is ascertained 1t
should be fairly executed. think may safely say that
there is southern within the sound of my voice
who will not for the admission Of Kansas as free
State if she brings here constitution to that effect Is
there southern here who will vote against the ad-
mission of Kansas free State if 1t be the undoubed
will of the people of that Territory that it shall be free
Slater
Many MEMBERS Not one
Mr.. ENGLISH No, sir, there is not one southern man
who will vote against the admission of Territory into
the Union free State if she presents herself with free
State constitution made such by the clearly expressed will
of her people Them if the gentlemen of the South
willing to act thus fairly and literally towards me and the
institutions prefer why shall not meet them in a SINH
lar spirt2 We agree that the will of the people shall
vail When shall we ascertain that wil2 A portion OF
the gentlemen from the South hold that the proper time is
when the people meet for the purpose Of framing State
constitution | believe that is the position Of southern
men generally 1t is not the poston of them all por-
ton hold as do that the right of the people begins at
earlier perod-that this question is within their
troll from the time the organic act is passed and put into
operation.
Mr. II. MARSHALL. There are very few who believe
that.
Mr.
be the ground do not what has been gained
by the passage of the Kansas-Neaska bill. There was
clause in the Missouri Compromie restricting slavery for
IL generally conceded hat the term forever
to be taken in its literal senstthat it only meant du
ring the existence Of the territorial government In fact 1t has
been decided in the Supreme Court of the United States in
several instances that restriction OF the kind would not
be binding after the organization OF State government
(See Sd Howard pages 2l2 and $50 Also loth Howard
page s2) Then would doubt that State had the
right to settle this question for ITSELF
Mr. IN he of in
Territory by territorial government have the citizens
of the South the right take their slaves there and hold
them such z
Mr.. ENGLISH. will continue the line of argument
was pursuing before was interrupted but before take
my seat will reply to the gentlemans interrogatory
going that in my Judgment unless the peo
pie of Territory had the right under their territorial
government to decide this question for themselves could
conceive the necessity for the repeal OF the Missouri
restriction. The people, under that law could establish
prohibit slavery 0heh they 10 be admitted as State
Just well under this construction Of the Kansas bill
Then what gained hold my position TO be the
rect one that the paope have the right TO determine the
territorial government will now hear the question
of the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr.. SHERMAN. Ny question is this Does the gentle
hold that prior the prohibition Of slavery in the
Territory, and while 1t Is in territorial condition. the
people OF the southern States may carry their slaves into
that Territory and hold them there as such
Mr.. ENGLISH. That is question purely Of consttu-
tonal law, and will probably be determined by the
highest judicial tribunal OF the country. am willing to
aCquiesce in that decision whatever il may be- But my
individual Judgment is that slavery not carried into
the Territories Of the United States under the operation Of
the constitution cannot that that instrument
ries the peculiar institution Of the South there any
than does the peculiar institution Of any other section
Mr.. SHERMAN In that opinion does not the gentle
man differ from the southern wing Of his party2
Mr.. ENGLISH apprehend that do with portion Of
IT. but the difference Is material The question Is
constitutional one and the democratic party North and
South will acquesce in whatever be the decision OF
the court ask the gentleman from Ohio If the consttu-
ton carries the institution Of slavery into the Territories by
it's operation whether the constitu on would just
much carry the institution there II the KansasA ebraska
bill had bean passed, and the Missouri restriction
had not been repealed
Mr.. SHERMAN. That question presents double read
ing Ny is thsi the constitution Of the United
States carries slavery nowhere that il Is local insttu
on confined within State limits and goes nowhere except
where express law carries IL
Mr.. ENGLISH In the main ! think so too but then
If IL be that the constitution carries slavery into the
Territories say 1t is constitutional right which Con-
gress cannot legsate away OF what use then the
Missouri restriction and the Wilmot proviso II the cons
tuition carries slavery into the Territories 1t is
which cannot take away by legisationthe constitu
tion being the paramount law.
will ask the gentleman further II the Supreme Court
Of the United States should decide that the constitution
does carry slavery into the Territories will be acquesce
in that decision
Mr.. SHERMAN. l answer yes.
Mr. SCOTT As my colleague Is speaking for the demo-
cratic party Of Indiana wish 10 know whether that party
has any opinion upon the question which he Is speak
ing upon aud II they have, what is that opinion
Mr.. ENGLISH. The democratic party Of Indiana re-
gard the constitution the highest law Of this land and
they win carry out the constitution IL may be
strued by the proper judicial tribunal Of the country let
that decision be what may but prior to that decision
will give what understand 10 be the position Of the dem
ocrac party Of lndana--and IL certainly is my
nd IL do