The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1856-08-22

may sometimes forget the first principl
recognized in Communication between gel
tlemen, and attempt to exc out an argumer
by afi1ing what are called nick-names upo
parties and persons, which they do n'
choose to recognize. IfSenators think the
can make anything Of this, let them do 1t
l shall not follow their example.
/ stated, Mr.. President, that I believe, q
I do believe, that the object Of this bill wa
to impose slavery upon Kansas. I bcliev
that was the object Of the repeal Of til
Missouri Compromise. Why? Ibelieve !
in the first place, because no other sensihl
reason can be given for the repeal Of tina
compromise. fit was not designed-if !
was not supposed, that the effect would b
to make Kansas Slave State, why was i
meddlcd with at all? Why not leave II a,
it was? BY the original compromise, slave.
ry could not 90 north Of SO deg. 30 min.-
If you did not wish 1t to go there-if you
did not suppose II might 60 there in consc.
quence Of the repeal, why was the compro-
mise interfered with2 What was tho OBJ
ject2 Was it to try merely useless cxper.
imont7 Was 1t that few words put upon
paper, and passed through the forms Of leg
islation, were to establish principle? Gen.
tlemen pretend to say that the object was to
establish the great principle Of the right oil
the people Of the Territories to govern them.
selves. What necessity existed for promul.
eating any such principle at that particlar
time, If you did not believe it would result
in the manner I have supposed?
Mr.. President, II cannot be forgotten that
when this doctrine was first promulgated,
il was received with amazemcnt-not to s.
derision throughout the country. 1t was
denied both north and south, and hardly
found an advocate in either section. The
south affirmed that settlers in Territory
had no power to prohibit slavery, and claim.
cd constitutional right to hold slaves in
any territory until the adoption Of State
constitution should otherwise determine
Tho north claimed that Congress had all
power over the subjcct-matter. It will be
recollectcd, sir, that every Free State in the
Union, except Iowa, had passed resolutions
against the extension Of slavery over free
territory, and in favor Of the Wilmot Pro-
viso. This doctrine of squatter sovereignty
then, found favor nowhere. 1t had no ad.
vocate-no friend-and, in my judgment,
it deserved none. /. involves too many alb
surdtics. 1t assumes that the people Of this
Union have no power over their own prop,
erty; that q few seitlers-locatcd, under
existing laws, upon lands, not their own
with a view to purchase, become masters o.
the destiny Of all about thcm-may deter,
mine the value Of the public domain, with.
out the assent of Congress, by adopting in
stitutions which may seriously and injuri-
ously affect that value may SO shape the
character Of an incipient State as to make
it burden upon all the others, instead Of a
new pillar in the national ediiice-may en-
tail upon tho country such calamities as
they please, unchecked by the people of the
country-may lcgalize crime, and may turn
q land Of freedom and virtue into citadel
Of oppression and wickedness ut their pleas
ure. Sir, the doctrine, as applied to new
and weak settlements, is absurd. hold IT
to be the duty of this government to afford
its protection to the Territories. The dnty
Of protection implies the power to govern.
All governments have acted on this princi-
pie since tho creation Of the world. Our
government has mainly, and wisely, left the
power Of passing local laws to the people OF
the Territories, subject to the reyersion OF
Congress. This restriction 1t had always
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and
this fact alone, is conclusive answer to the
whole doctrine Of squatter sovereignty. IL
il exists at all, il must exist in the whole.
The power to make laws is not sovereign
power, If it has any superior.
But, Mr.. President, notwithstanding the
previous unpopularity of this doctrine,
which no party had assumed, or incorporat-
ed into its creed, yet, suddenly, when the
Missouri restriction was to be abrosatod, II
sprang into new life; it was at once vital
lied. Southern gentlemen discovered that
the people Of the slave States had been suf.
fering with constitutional wounds for many
years, and northern gentlemen found that
tho sovereign rights Of the people had been
trampled upon from the foundation of Il c
government. This doctrine, sir, had be-
come convenient. 1t would answer pur.
pose, and was fit for the occasion. The
people were to shape their institutions a
they wished, and Congress was, for the firs'
time, relieved from all supervision Of terri
torial legislation. The settlers in Kansas
and Nebraska were apparently left in .th'
exclusive, unlimited exercise Of popular sov
ercignty, 80 far as legislation was con
cerned.
Sir, 1 had little faith then, and time hai
not increased It in these new revelations.-
They came, to use o common expression
wrong end foremost. They did not Civ
birth to the act, but the act gave birth Z
them. Tho Kansas and Nebraska Bill wa
not, in my belief, consequence, but
cause. The thing preceded the principle.
1 affirm, Mr.. President, that no recogni
ton of this doctrine is to bc necessarily in
ferrcd from the compromisc measure Of 1850
Such inference is an afterthought. AM
here let me say to the Senator from Gcor
gia. that he erred in asserting that It wa
recognized by the whig convention Of 1852
which nominated Gen. Scott. 1t isa mil
Il Al