The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-01-17


rupted by
Mr.. CGngman, of North Carolina, who OBJ
jectes. stating that the House was acting under
a resolution requiring candidates to answer GER
tain interrogatories. They had been propounded
to and answered by one of the candidates, and
he thought it was but just and fair that the
others should answer before general debate
should commence.
The following sentiments, expressed by Mr..
Richardson in 1850, in the same speech from
which he read the foregoing extracts, are to be
found at the page of the Congressional Globe
alluded to, and appear to be those upon which
some portion of the interrogatories Of Mr.. Zo,-
icofer were based:
for the passage of the Wilmot Proviso. There
is a necessity to abolish or prohibit Slavery il
Territories where it exists With this view, the
Ordinance of 1887 was passed. 1t had applies
ton to territory where Slavery did exist by
operation of the laws of Virginia, to which the
Northwestern Territory belonged. The Nilsson
compromise also abolished Slavery north of 3t0
30>. That compromise was passed, not to keep
the territory free north of that latitude, but be-
cause the laws of Louisiana, when we acquired
1t, recognised Slavery, and carried it, conse
quently, unless repealed, to all the Territoris.
But maintain, sir, that Slavery is the creature
OF municipal law, and does not and cannot exist
one moment without it. If territory is free,
there IS no necessity to pass any law; it Will
remain 80.
The people of the non-slaveholding States
believe that the territory we acquired from
Mexico by the treaty of peace brought with it
laws not inconsistent with our Constitution, and
that those laws excluded Slavery. If there is
any Representative from the non-slaveholdihg
States that denies either of these propositions,
l ask him to rise in his place and say So.
There are none who can or dare deny it.
"This is universal sentiment at the North,
and l might refer to all the speeches that hare
been made at this session of Congress and the
last, to show that every one from the non-slafe-
holding States, Free-Soilers and all, hold that
the Territories are now free. If this is true,
| what more can you do? They are free now,
and will ever remain so; they are free by the
law of nations, they are free by the laws of ma
| ture they will remain free, from causes to
which / have already referred, forever. This
should satisfy all, in my judgment, who are op-
posed to the extension of Slavery. The posi-
ton is so unanswerable, that the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky Mr.. Clay says it is
'incontestabe truth
"Why, then, ask, is this proviso urged with
so much zeal and pertinacty? 1t can do no
possible good, and its passage may disturb the
harmonious relations of the people of this Con-
federacy, and overthrow the proudest fabric
that God has ever permitted man to erect.
"The Representatives from the slaveholeing
States maintain that wherever our flag floats
over territory Of the United States, and not
within the limits of a sovereign State, the Con
stitution carries and protects Slavery. If this
is true, any law passed by Congress impairing
right thus secured is null and void, and the
Itofo 10 md
harmless. hear gentlemen, after urging this
constitutional right, with establishment declare
that they and their constituents are outraged
and wronged by this invasion from the North.
If this right exists by the Constitution, it will
be as valid after the passage of the Wilmot
| Proviso, or any other proviso, as it is now or
ever was. But they say the people of the South
will be deferred from going with their slaves to
| the Territories by the passage by Congress Of
the Proviso. One of two differences is irresist-
ible: they are satisfied this constitutional guar
antee does not exist, or the people are not de-
sirous of going into the Territories with their
| slaves.
81 do not and cannot believe that our Con
stitution carries and protects Slavery, except in
States nor do believe that its trainers intend,
ed that it should extend this institution. l be,
lieve it was formed for far higher and nobler
| purposes. 1t was formed to preserve forever a
union of these States, and to guard and protect
each and every citizen whose lot might be cast
in it, in his person and property and conscience.
81 believe Congress has full power to pass
such laws as they may think proper for the
government of the Territories. There is, con.
sequently, no constitutional difficulties ia my
road"
Mr.. Banks. Mr.. Clerk, voted for the reso.
luton presented by the honorable gentleman
from Tennessee Mr.. Zollicoffer yesterday
with pleasure 1t embodies a principle which
Z! think sound. AS understood by me, when
reported at the Clerks desk, it was nothing
more nor less than simply this that any gen,
tleman who votes for candidate for any Office,
ought to know the opinions of that candidate.
l recognise the right of every gentleman, in
this House, who has been voting for Speaker
during this protracted contest, to ascertain the
opinions of any man for whom he casts his
vote. Sir, / should claim it as my right to
know the opinions of my candidate, to such an
extent as should be satisfactory to myself, at
least.
But, sir, as a member of the House, l have
other rights. l offer myself as candidate for
no office / solicit no mans suffrage; and
am not, therefore, called upon, as candidate,
to solve such difficulties as gentlemen support
ing other persons may find in the existing con-
ored me by their confidence and votes are
themselves responsible for the course they have
chosen, and, doubt not, they are able to meet
that responsibility. 1t is not for me to pro.
vide for their defence. | can only say, an
Othelo said of his wife, they had eyes, and
chose me-"
| have NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. of duty, con-
victions Of principle-upon the great matters
in which the country is interested and as a
member of the House, representing district
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,, have
no hesitation in responding to any of the in
quiries propounded by the honorable gentle
man from Tennessee to the honorable gentle
man from Illinois. / ask the Clerk to read the
first question.
The Clerk read as follows:
fam l right in supposing that the gentle.
man from Illinois regards the Kansas-Nebras.
ka bill as promotive of the formation Of free
States in the Territories of Kansas and Nebras-
| ka?"
Mr.. Banks. 1t will be understood, of coarse,
that the phraseology of this inquiry APPLES
rather to the gentleman from Illinois Mr..
Richardson than to myself | answer, dis
tinctly, that do not regard the Kanssa-N Ne
braska bill as promotive of the formation of free
States, inasmuch as it repeats the prohibition
of the institution of Slavery oyer the section of
country to which that statute applies. think
it does not tend to the formation of free States.
That is my answer.
The Clerk read as follows:
Gam / right in supposing he advocates the
constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso that
in 1850 he opposed its application to the terri
tories acquired from Mexico, only upon the
ground that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as
the Mexican local laws in those territories al
ready. abolished Slavery-which ought to be