The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1856-10-14
From the South Bend Register Sept. 25th.
DUNN's BILL.


candidates and the principles of the Republi-
can party. BY the multiplicity of these false
hoods, and the pertinacity with which they
are circulated and adhered to, the Buccaneers
hope to reach and deceive some who would
otherwise vote right on the great question of
the extension or non-extension of Slavery
The Buchaneer politicians lie continually and
wilfully, and in lying they found their only
hopes of success, If the Devil is the father
of lies, he must certainly feel proud of some
of his Buchaneer offspring for never before
has he found such faithful and efficient chill
dren as he has in the Buchaneer leaders in
the present campaign.
All along they have attempted to create
prejudice by stigmatizng the Republican
as abolitionists who were willing to imperil
our glorious Union in order to benefit few
niggers. Finding that this falsehood was
not having the desired effect, they now take
a new and opposite tack and charge the Re-
publican members with voting to extend, es-
tablish and protect slavery in Kansas and Ne
braska, because they voted for Dunn's bill.--
Every Buchaneer press, orator, and bar-room
politician are as busily engaged in circulating
this infamous falsehood, as if the very exis-
tence of their party depended upon their sue
cess in making some -one believe it to be
truth. What are the facts?
The Republican proposition for Peace and
Justice to Kansas was to admit her as Free
State under the Topeka Constitution. This
Free State bill passed the House but was re-
jected by the Senate. Then Mr.. Dunn, who
did not vote with the Republicans for Speak
or nor e. tIo E.oo Ctafa R;lI prorncad opofb-
er plan, namely, the entire reorganization of
the Territory, and the restoration of the Mis-
souri, Compromise Prohibition of Slavery
This bill was put under the Previous Question,
and had to be voted for or against as whole
without amendment or debate. Dean, Col
fax. Watson, and other Republican members,
while voting for the bill, rose and stated
that they objected to some Of the details, but
as it accomplished the great object of resto
ring Freedom to Kansas forever, and decreas-
ed instead of extending the area of Slavery,
they were justified in voting aye. The bill
provided that not another slave should ever
be taken into Kansas; that the prohibition
against slavery should be restored and become
perpetual law; that the obnoxious laws should
be absolutely null and void, that new officers
should be sent to the Territory that the Free
State prisoners, now so shamefully and unjust
ly imprisoned, should be released, and that
the indictments for alleged political offences
should be quashed But because the slaves
now held in Kansas arc not Immediately By
virtue of Dunn's bill, although emancipated
if remaining there on the 1st of January,
1858, the Buchaneers charge that the bill ex-
tends, establishes, and protects Slavery in
| Kansas and add that the Buchaneers unan-
| imously voted against it and the Republicans
arc in favor of, and the BUCCANEERS opposed
! to, the extension of Slavery! If this charge
Of the Buchaneers is true, and if such de-
| duction can be correctly drawn from the vote
on the bill, we would like to know how it
came that Cobb, Brooks, Toonibs, and all the
rest of the nigger-drivers In Congress, voted
against it, while such life long and Jealous
Anti-Slavery men rs Giddings, and others
voted for it. II would be interesting to
know by what process pro-slavery men so
Suddenly became anti-slavery, and gice versa.
The Republicans voted for the Bill and the
Buchaniers against it for exactly the same
reasons, and no other. And those reasons
were these: the passage of the bill would
| have done away with the infamous laws and
officers of the Missouri Kansas Legislature; |;
it would have prohibited the introduction Of
a single slave into the Territory; and thus it
would have ensured the admission of Kansas
into tho Union as Free State. That the
| bill did not provide for the immediate eman-
cipation of slaves already there, was the rea-
son why single Buchanier voted against it
is so absurdly false that the father Of lies him
self would be ashamed to insinuate it.
Under the Kansas-N Ncbraska Bill, which re-
pcaled to prohibition of slavery, 1872 slaves
| have been taken into Kansas, as shown by
the official census. Dunn's bill, after repeal
ing the Kansas Nebraska act and restoring
the prohibition of slavery, reads as follows, in
reference to these slaves:
"prorjd,d Lo,oeper tbot
any person lawfully hfld seruice ia eh Of aid Terri
tories shall be discharged from such by
sonof such repeal and revival of sod eighth section
| If such persons shall be permanently removed from
such Territory Ter ores prior 10 the first Of JAN
| 1888 and any child or children born in either of said
Territories. or any female lawfully held to service,
il in like manner removed without said territories be-
fore the expiration Of said date shall not be- by
of anything in this act emancipaed from any
vice it might have owed had tins act never been pass
Cd and provided, further, that any person lawfully
held to service in any other State or Territory of the
United States, and escaping into either the Terrific
lies Of Kansas or Nebraska may be reclaimed and re-
moved TO the person or place where such service ls
due, under any law of the United States which shall
be formed upon the subject"
That the above clause, in itself, extends
slavery into Kansas or establishes, or protects
it there as charged by the Buchaniers, no one
who understands the meaning of plain ian
gua6e can believe. Tho bill takes the posi-
tion of non-interfereuce until January 1st.
| 1853, with slaves already there, if they are
lawfully held to service. AS TO whether
these slaves are lawfully or unlawfully held,
the bill docs not decide, nor attempt to- de-
eide. 1t leaves that question 70 be decided
elsewhere and in another way. II they are
held unlawfully, (as Republicans believe, and
no doubt as Dunn himself believes,) the bill
does not make the holding lawtM. 1t docs
not make single person lawful slave who
was not lawful slave before. If it shall be
decided by competent authority that these
slaves are lawfully held, then the bill does
| not Immediately emaucipate them by reason